Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

DEATH OF A MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:

I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Sir Cyril Cobb, K.B.E., M.V.O., late Member for the Borough of Fulham (West Division), and desire to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PAISLEY CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Paisley Corporation," presented by Mr. Elliot; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

JEWS, CENTRAL EUROPE.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the economic distress of the Jewish population in Central Europe, His Majesty's Government will propose at the next meeting of the League Council that measures of international relief be taken, including the raising of an international loan for such purposes to be administered through the League of Nations?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the circumstances referred to in the first part of the question, but do not consider that it would be possible or appropriate to take any such initiative.

Mr. Henderson: Does not humanitarian work of this kind meet with the approval of everybody, and are we not prepared to do it?

Mr. Butler: If the League are prepared to do it, that is different.

Sir Percy Harris: Could it not be put upon the agenda and discussed, not necessarily on these lines, so that we may have a chance to appreciate the merits of the whole problem?

RAW MATERIALS.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the invitation to His Majesty's Government by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to submit observations regarding the principles formulated by the economic committee in connection with commercial access to raw materials, he will say what steps he is taking to give a considered reply to this question?

Mr. Butler: The reply to be returned to the Secretary-General is under consideration. His Majesty's Government are in general agreement with the principles formulated by the committee with which, in fact, their policy generally conforms. It would be necessary to know the views of the other Governments concerned before deciding whether the time is ripe for international action in the matter.

Mr. Mathers: Can we depend upon the British Government taking prompt action in this matter in order that there may be no delay?

Mr. Butler: I have stated that our policy is in general on the lines that the committee has in mind, and we shall certainly do our best to carry it out.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA (NEWSPAPERS, SUPPRESSION).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Rumanian Government have suppressed most of the newspapers in Rumania which were printed in the Russian, Ukrainian, or Jewish language, numbering four Ukrainian, 11 Russian, and 20 Jewish newspapers; and, as this action is in contravention of the provisions of the minorities treaty giving special language rights to minorities, to which Great


Britain is a signatory, what action has been taken?

Mr. Butler: I understand that a number of newspapers have recently been suppressed, but I have no detailed information as to the grounds on which action has been taken. As the hon. Member is aware, the provisions of the Rumanian minorities treaty are placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations, and any complaint that these provisions had been infringed would be a matter to be dealt with by the League in accordance with the established procedure.

Mr. Mander: Will advantage be taken of the presence of King Carol in the near future to discuss, either formally or informally, all these matters?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Mander: May I ask for an answer to my question, as King Carol is to visit this country and there is very strong feeling about what is being done? Will opportunity be taken to call his attention to it?

Mr. Butler: I can give no undertaking to the hon. Gentleman, but I will certainly note the point that he has made.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister what is the position in regard to the withdrawal of foreign troops concerned now that the Powers concerned have agreed in principle to the British formula; and whether there is yet any proposal or agreement as to the number of troops to be withdrawn in the first instance and the method by which the expenses of such withdrawal are to be met?

Mr. Butler: I am not at liberty to make any statement at present on these questions, which are under the consideration of the Non-Intervention Committee.

Mr. Cocks: When will the next meeting of the Committee be held?

Mr. Butler: I cannot at present say.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it proposed that the British taxpayer should pay for the withdrawal of Italian troops from Spain?

Mr. R. Acland: asked the Prime Minister whether he can give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will neither propose nor sanction any departure from the resolution of the Non-Intervention Committee adopted on 4th November, 1937, and particularly paragraph (3) of that resolution, which laid it down that reimposition of control over land frontiers should shortly precede the commencement of withdrawals of non-Spanish nationals from Spain and should be simultaneous with the reimposition of a reinforced system of sea control in accordance with the terms of the Van Dulm-Hemming report?

Mr. Butler: As I pointed out to the hon. Member on 7th March, this is a matter which is at present under the consideration of the Non-Intervention Committee. As has previously been made clear, the British proposals stand as a whole, and are a matter for decision by the Committee as a whole.

Mr. Acland: Can we have an assurance now that the British Government will not go back on the agreement which was previously reached on this very important matter?

Mr. Butler: Various questions are now being considered together, and I am not in a position at present to give an assurance.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered an article recently published in "Dia Grafico," the official organ of the Barcelona Government, in which it is made clear that that Government, if successful in the present civil war, will obtain the return of Gibraltar to Spain; and what representations he has made to that Government?

Mr. Butler: I have not seen the article to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am making inquiries.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Would the Minister like me to send him a copy of the article?

Mr. Hannah: Is there any doubt that we shall retain Gibraltar?

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing difficulties of the Spanish Government


faced by unlimited Italian war material, he will include in the Italian conversations the cessation of such supplies in future and, further, that our Ambassador at Rome should be informed of what is being sent to Spain from Italy?

Mr. Butler: As the House will be aware, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to secure general adherence to the Non-Intervention Agreement. There is the fullest interchange of information between my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome over all questions relevant to the discharge of the Ambassador's duties.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is it relative to the Ambassador's duties to find out information from the Italian Government or elsewhere as to the shipping of munitions of war to Spain; and, if that is his duty, is he sending the information?

Mr. Butler: I think the right hon. Gentleman may be assured that His Majesty's Government have all the information that they can procure.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Can our Ambassador in Paris be informed as to the amounts of munitions passing over the French frontier to Catalonia?

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the continual import of Italian raw material into Spain is a matter relevant to the British-Italian conversations?

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Prime Minister whether the French Government have yet approached the Vatican with a view to obtaining an authoritative condemnation of the bombing in Spain by either side of civilians; whether His Majesty's representative at the Vatican has been asked to make any such representations; and, if not, will he be told to do so?

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Prime Minister whether any response has been received to the representations made by the French Government, with the support of His Majesty's Government, seeking the good offices of the Vatican in order to bring about an agreement between both sides engaged in the civil war in Spain to abandon the bombardment of open towns and other unfortified places; and whether any representations have yet

been made by the British Minister to the Vatican on this subject?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): His Majesty's Government and the French Government are still in consultation regarding the form of the proposed appeal to the contending Spanish parties. His Majesty's Government have consequently not yet made any approach to the Vatican, nor, so far as I am aware, have the French Government done so.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Is it possible to invite the Vatican to intervene in one part of Spain where there has been wholesale destruction of churches?

Colonel Wedgwood: Are any further steps in contemplation in this matter, seeing its importance for all the people of Spain, on both sides?

The Prime Minister: I have said that we are still in consultation on the matter with the French Government.

Sir H. Croft: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give particulars of the air attack upon His Majesty's Ships "Blanche" and "Brilliant"?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Ships "Blanche" and "Brilliant" were attacked about mid-day on Sunday last, 6th March, by five aircraft while they were proceeding to investigate bombing which had taken place in the vicinity of the British steamship "Shakespear." No damage was caused. His Majesty's Government take a serious view of attacks of this character upon His Majesty's ships of war. As they are of opinion, on the evidence available, that the aircraft in question was in the service of the Spanish Government, a suitable protest is being addressed to that Government.

Sir H. Croft: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there have been any air operations in connection with the Spanish war in proximity to His Majesty's Ship "Royal Oak"; and whether every precaution is taken to keep capital ships of the Royal Navy in neutral waters removed from the possibilities of air attack?

Mr. Shakespeare: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.


As regards the second part, my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that, while none of His Majesty's ships will be hazarded unnecessarily, the nature of the duties which they may be required to perform is such that, in the circumstances at present prevailing in Spanish waters, they must remain subject to a certain degree of risk of air attack.

Sir H. Croft: Cannot the capital ships of the British Navy be kept out of these possibilities? Can the hon. Member tell us what air operations took place in the neighbourhood of the "Royal Oak," as I asked him to do in the first part of the question?

Mr. Shakespeare: On the first part of the question, one can only say that a capital ship of this size is less vulnerable to air attack than a smaller ship. In reply to the second part, there have been three attacks in the vicinity of the "Royal Oak," and no damage has been done.

Sir H. Croft: Is the hon. Member aware by whom the attacks were made, and has any protest been made? Were they, in fact, five Russian aeroplanes?

Mr. Shakespeare: I am informed that one was presumably Nationalist, one believed to belong to the Spanish Government, and one doubtful.

Mr. Shinwell: Do the Admiralty think that these attacks were deliberate?

Mr. Shakespeare: It is very difficult sometimes to say, so inaccurate is the attack, what target is being aimed at.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (COLONIES).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Prime Minister how many countries are involved in the German Colonies claim; and what was the square mileage of the German Colonies before 1914?

Mr. Butler: The Governments administering Mandates over territories which formed part of the former German Colonies are His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa, and the Governments of France, Belgium and Japan. As regards the second part of the ques-

tion, many of the areas concerned have not been accurately surveyed, and the available statistics are in certain cases conflicting, but, so far as can be ascertained, the area of the German Colonies in 1914 was approximately 1,135,600 square miles.

Mr. Thorne: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the tremendously big problem that has to be confronted?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Has the visit of Lord Noel-Buxton to Germany to lecture upon the return of the Colonies been taken with the approval and concurrence of the British Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (MOSCOW TRIAL: STATEMENTS).

Mr. Leach: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the harm done to relations between this country and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by the evidence recently given in the trial in Moscow by Ivanov and others who had been members or officials of the Russian Government, to the effect that they had acted for a group working with Great Britain for the overthrow of the Soviet regime; and whether he can give an assurance that this country has not at any time been guilty of any such breach of the agreement with the Russian Government that each would abstain from interference in the internal affairs of the other country?

Captain Ramsay: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in the recent trial in Russia evidence has been given by persons who formerly were members of, or officials in the service of, the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, to the effect that while so employed they had acted as agents, paid or otherwise, for this country; and whether he will make a statement on the matter to show that this country has not been guilty of any such breach of the agreement with the Soviet Government to abstain from propaganda and from any other form of interference in each other's internal affairs?

Mr. Hulbert: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of its effect upon Anglo-Russian relations, he will


make a statement in regard to the evidence given at the present state trial in Moscow to the effect that certain named British subjects were employed by the British Intelligence Service to recruit certain ex-official Russian subjects for that service?

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking or proposes to take to counteract the damage done to the good relations between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and this country by the evidence given in a recent trial in Russia that certain former Russian officials had, while occasionally resident in this country, acted as the agents of this Government?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the prejudicial effect on Anglo-Soviet relations likely to be produced within the Soviet Union by the evidence given at this trial. I doubt, however, whether the allegations, which are totally untrue, will be given any credit in this country or, indeed, anywhere outside the Soviet Union. I feel that I need hardly assure the House that His Majesty's Government have not been guilty of any breach of their agreement with the Soviet Government, and that they have not employed any of the British subjects whose names have been mentioned at the trial to work for the Intelligence Service, or to engage in any subversive activities whatever against the Soviet Government.

Captain Ramsay: Will the Prime Minister make it clear to the Russian Government that British international good faith is not a suitable subject for the manufacture of bogus evidence?

Miss Wilkinson: Does the fact that so many distinguished citizens have since been lecturing on their experiences as members of the British Intelligence Service, square with the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has just given.

The Prime Minister: I do not know to whom the hon. Lady refers.

Miss Wilkinson: Lady Muriel Paget.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady appears to suggest that Lady Muriel Paget has been lecturing on her experiences in the British Intelligence Service. She has had no experience in the British Intelligence Service. Anybody who knows anything about her work knows that it is thoroughly unselfish and humanitarian.

Miss Wilkinson: Those who know something about her work have reason to doubt the statement just made by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Leach: Can the Prime Minister take any steps to protect the innocent victims of these fantastic stories—

Mr. Gallacher: They are true stories—

Mr. Leach: —and will he do so?

Mr. Gallacher: Are we to understand that the British Intelligence Service has no interest in Russia, or that there is no British Intelligence Service; and does the Prime Minister mean to tell us that men who are facing trial voluntarily make statements of this kind without there being any basis for them?

Captain Ramsay: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that he will inform the Russian Government that British international good faith is not a suitable subject for the manufacture of bogus evidence?

Mr. Thurtle: May I ask the Prime Minister to state specifically that there are no British Intelligence agents in Soviet Russia?

Oral Answers to Questions — CANTON AND ENDERBURY ISLANDS.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the recent declaration of sovereignty by the United States Government over the islands of Canton and Enderbury, in the Southern Pacific, in view of the recent Orders in Council claiming them as British territory?

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the American claim to sovereignty over Canton Island and Enderbury Island, in the Southern Pacific Ocean; whether British jurisdiction over these islands was previously claimed; and what steps are being taken to preserve British rights in these islands on account of their importance as prospective aerial bases?

The Prime Minister: In discussions last year the United States Government contested the validity of the British claim to the Phoenix Group of islands in which Canton and Enderbury are situated, and declined to recognise the Order-in-Council


of 18th March, 1937. Sir R. Lindsay has been instructed to inform the United States Government that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom cannot regard the juridical situation as in any way affected by their recent action which included a landing on Canton Island. This island had been effectively occupied by His Majesty's Government on 5th August, 1937, and an administrative officer now resides there. He was instructed to add that His Majesty's Government maintain all their rights to the Phoenix Group. It is intended in the immediate future to submit proposals to the United States Government which, it is hoped, will serve as a basis for ending this controversy in a manner satisfactory to both parties.

Mr. Henderson: Does His Majesty's Government propose to consult the Government of New Zealand in this matter?

The Prime Minister: I must have notice of that question, but I understand they have been consulted.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the recent declaration by Dr. Hodza, the Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia, of the desire of his Government that His Majesty's Government should realise that appeasement and peace in Central Europe is a matter of general, and therefore of British, interest; and whether he will assure the Czechoslovakian Government that His Majesty's Government fully realise this fact?

The Prime Minister: I have read with great interest the speech recently made by the Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia, but I do not consider that it requires or invites any further statement on my part.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia expressed in a speech the desire of the Czechoslovakian Government that the British Government should recognise this fact, and is it not the case that His Majesty's Government do take this view? Can the Prime Minister say so?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the answer which I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA.

Mr. Benn: asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish the Maffey Report and will assure the House that the Government is not contemplating, as part of an Anglo-Italian settlement, any annexation to British possessions of Abyssinian territory?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that I stated in the House on 23rd February that I could not pledge myself in advance with regard to any discussions which His Majesty's Government may have with the Italian Government on the subject of Abyssinia. To that statement I have nothing to add.

Mr. Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that his failure to give an assurance that he will not participate in the dismemberment of Abyssinia will be a great shock to many people?

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Is not the Prime Minister's Government already pledged not to recognise the acquisition of territory by means contrary to the Covenant of the League?

The Prime Minister: We are governed by the terms of the Covenant, like the others who signed it.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Would not the annexation by ourselves of Abyssinia be a plain violation of the Covenant's guarantee of territorial integrity?

Mr. Petherick: Is it not a fact that many countries which are members of the League have already recognised the Italian Empire?

Mr. Macquisten: Is it not better to admit facts?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Japanese military authorities in Shanghai claim to exercise censorship on ingoing and outgoing mails; whether he has received any reports on this matter from His Majesty's Consul-General; and whether he will make it clear to the Japanese Government in Tokyo and to the Japanese military authorities in Shanghai that this claim cannot be admitted and will be resisted?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the first and second parts of this question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, His Majesty's Consul-General in Shanghai has addressed a protest to the Japanese Consul-General and a request that instructions may be issued to refrain from censuring British mails. Representations on the same subject were made by His Majesty's Embassy in Tokyo on 3rd March.

Mr. Moreing: If the Japanese continue this policy of trying to impose a censorship, would His Majesty's Government consider re-opening the British Post Office at Shanghai, so as to ensure British mails reaching British nationals?

Mr. Butler: I should like to wait till a reply to our representations has been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

HONG KONG DOCKYARD (CHARGEMEN'S PAY AND ALLOWANCES).

Captain Plugge: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the wages of British chargemen in His Majesty's dockyard at Hong Kong at the present time, with the dollar reckoned at 1s. 3d., amount to, approximately, 64s. per week, which is less than the lowest rated mechanic in the home dockyards; that foreign service and quarters allowances which they receive are quite inadequate to meet the great increase in the local cost of living and rents resulting from the recent large incursion of refugees into Hong Kong; and whether, in these circumstances, steps can be taken to review the pay and allowances of these British chargemen?

Mr. Shakespeare: My hon. and gallant Friend will, of course, be aware that the total emoluments at present received by chargemen of trades at Hong Kong are considerably in excess of the figure which he mentions. Owing to the differing standards and conditions, it is difficult to establish and maintain a direct relationship between home yard rates of pay and the sterling equivalent of the comparable Hong Kong rates. I am, however, aware of the price fluctuations resulting from the recent incursion of refugees into the Colony, and consideration is being given to the possibility of a temporary increase in the emoluments

of agreement workmen, among other grades, at Hong Kong, to meet this situation.

NEW CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number and tonnage of British battleships projected but not yet building?

Mr. Shakespeare: As the hon. Member will now be aware from the recent White Paper on Defence (Cmd. 5682), the new construction programme for 1938 includes two capital ships. Their tonnage is still under consideration, and I am not at present able to make any statement on this subject.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Are the Admiralty or the Foreign Office taking any steps, before coming to a decision, to respond to the Japanese invitation to consider the abolition of capital ships?

Mr. Shakespeare: That is no new invitation; it was made some years ago.

Mr. Alexander: Was it not renewed officially in the speech of a Japanese Minister last week?

Mr. Shakespeare: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put that new question on the Paper.

Mr. Garro Jones: Has any further information been obtained from the Japanese Government as to the size of the battleships projected or building by them?

Mr. Shakespeare: No, I understand not.

DOCKYARDS (FOREIGN WARSHIPS, FACILITIES).

Mr. Mander: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the advisability of letting it be known that the British Government would be prepared to enter into negotiations with the United States Government for the use by it on appropriate terms, by lease or otherwise, of a portion of the Singapore naval dock?

Mr. Shakespeare: Facilities for docking and repairing foreign warships, on a repayment basis, in British Naval dockyards are normally afforded when desired subject to our own requirements not being thereby prejudiced.

Mr. Mander: In the event of any suggestion on the lines indicated in the question being put forward by the United


States Government, may I assume that it will be carefully considered by the Government?

Mr. Shakespeare: Yes; I have said so.

OIL FUEL.

Mr. Day: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give an assurance that His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the reserve stocks of oil are adequate to meet any emergency that may be necessary for the Fleet; and whether these stocks are adequately protected against air attacks?

Mr. Shakespeare: The Admiralty are taking the necessary measures to accumulate an adequate reserve of oil fuel for the Fleet, and arrangements are being made to provide protection against air attack.

Mr. Day: Are arrangements also being made for other oil besides oil fuel?

AIRCRAFT (CATAPULTS).

Mr. Day: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of battleships or cruisers at present in commission that are fitted for launching aircraft from catapults; and how many others actually carry and operate aircraft?

Mr. Shakespeare: Seven capital ships and 30 cruisers in commission are equipped for launching aircraft from catapults. Included in the latter figure are three cruisers of the Royal Australian Navy and two cruisers of the New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy. One cruiser in addition carries and can operate aircraft but is not yet fitted with a catapult.

Mr. Day: Are arrangements being made for fitting the new battleships and cruisers with catapults?

Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, Sir.

INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYÉS (HOSPITAL FUND CONTRIBUTIONS).

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding arrangements for collecting the contributions of the non-established workers in the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory, Greenock, to their hospital's fund from their pay?

Mr. Shakespeare: The hon. and learned Member will be pleased to hear that

arrangements are now being made to institute the centralised machinery, referred to in the reply given to him on this subject on 15th December last, under which Government industrial employés in any part of the country, not covered by existing contributory schemes, may arrange for contributions to local hospital funds by means of deductions from their pay.

Mr. Gibson: Does that mean that new entrants into the torpedo factory service will have the same privileges as the established workers and the old hands; and is that being extended beyond the Admiralty service?

Mr. Shakespeare: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will put that question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

ARABS (DETENTIONS AND DEPORTATIONS).

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Arabs are at present detained in Palestine in concentration camps, and how many have been deported?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The number of Arabs under detention in Palestine on 28th February was 658. I assume that in the last part of the question my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the Arabs who have been deported to the Seychelles: their number is five.

Sir A. Knox: Have any of these people been tried in any form of court?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir.

OIL EXPLORATION.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the dependence of this country upon oil produced in foreign countries, His Majesty's Government will allow the development of the Dead Sea oilfield to proceed under the rights offered to a British subject, Dr. Homer, in 1933 and renewed in 1934, that oilfield being in a position of strategic importance to the defence services of the Empire and in territory protected by His Majesty's forces?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The grant of oil rights, if oil is discovered in Palestine and Transjordan, rests with the Palestine and Transjordan Governments. Applications


from several persons, including the lady mentioned in the question, for oil exploration permits have been received. Action upon them has been deferred pending the revision, which has not yet been completed, of the general oil legislation of Palestine and Transjordan.

Sir A. Knox: Is it not a fact that this lady was requested to go to Palestine as long ago as 1934, and why has the whole thing been held up ever since?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: We have no reason to suppose that there is oil in Palestine, but before we embark on giving concessions in a country of that kind we have to be very careful about the terms on which we do so.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that if there were oil in Palestine the British Government would have been after it?

MILITARY COURT SENTENCES.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that on 24th November, 1937, Sheikh Farhan es-Sadi, 75 years of age, was condemned to death by a military court for carrying firearms, whereas on the 21st January a young Jew, convicted of the same offence, was by a similar court sentenced to five years' imprisonment, subsequently reduced by the general officer commanding to three months; and whether he will make inquiries as to the discrepancy in the sentences and make a statement on the matter?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As I have already made clear, I cannot intervene in such cases. I am aware, however, of the two cases mentioned, and the circumstances appear to me to be entirely dissimilar. In trials for carrying firearms without lawful authority the military court is required by the Defence Regulations, where it is satisfied that the accused person had a reasonable excuse, the burden of proof of which shall lie upon him, to take the circumstances into account in mitigation of the penalty.

Sir A. Knox: Surely this first sentence is particularly savage, considering the age of the defendant?

Mr. Radford: Is there not a difference between someone who carries a revolver for self-defence and someone who carries one for aggression?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly.

PASTORAL BISHOPS (APPOINTMENT).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the appointment of an Arab suffragan for the non-Greek members of the Orthodox Church in Palestine?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I understand that there are already two pastoral Bishops (entitled Metropolitans) in Palestine. The Government of Palestine is not concerned with such appointments, and the question of the appointment of an additional Bishop is not a matter in which I could intervene.

PATRIARCHATE.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an approximate time can be given for the confirmation of the election to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir. I am afraid that it is not possible for me to give an approximate date.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA.

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the terms of a resolution passed by a large and representative public meeting in Georgetown, British Guiana, on 7th February, and handed to the Governor of the Colony on 15th February; and whether, in view of the fact that the resolution, which appeals for an official investigation of the social conditions and potential economic development of Jamaica, Barbados and British Guiana, is signed by representative religious, municipal, social and trade union leaders of the last-mentioned Colony, he will take steps to give effect to this appeal?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the Governor of British Guiana will no doubt send me a copy of the resolution and his observations thereon.

Mr. Lunn: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to listen to these people and to send out a Commission to inquire into the source of the trouble?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I cannot add anything to what I said the other day in the Debate.

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there has been any improvement in the sea-defence position in British Guiana during the past year?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: A programme of new construction and replacement works was drawn up by the Director of Public Works and Sea Defences early in 1937, and was approved on the recommendation of the Governor. In addition, provision was made in the Colony's estimates for normal expenditure on maintenance and administration and for the special hydrographic survey to which I referred in my reply to the question by the hon. Member on 10th March, 1937. This survey has been continued throughout the year.

Mr. Robinson: Has there been any improvement in the situation as a result of this action during the past year?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir, there has been considerable expenditure in connection with the problem of keeping out the sea in British Guiana.

Mr. Maxton: They are more particular about keeping it out there than in Norfolk.

Mr. MacLaren: It is in the landlord's hands in both cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG (MUI-TSAI).

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governor of Hong Kong is now in a position to forward information to him concerning the Hong Kong Government's attitude towards the majority and minority reports of the Mui-Tsai Commission; and when a final decision may be expected?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have not yet received final recommendations from the Governor of Hong Kong, but I understand that agreement on the measures which are regarded as desirable and practicable in the circumstances may soon be reached locally, and that a report may shortly be expected.

Miss Ward: Has my right hon. Friend any information as to whether those recommendations will be based on the minority report?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: None whatever, yet.

Viscountess Astor: Does my right hon. Friend realise that we are most anxious to have the report and legislation passed while he is Colonial Secretary?

Oral Answers to Questions — STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (BROADCAST NEWS RECEPTION).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reasons newspapers in Singapore have been refused permission to operate radio receiving sets for the reception of news?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No restriction is placed by the Government in the Straits Settlements on the private reception and dissemination of news broadcast by telephony from duly authorised broadcasting stations. As regards news broadcast by radio-telegraphy, for example, Reuter's Rugby Service, it was decided to adopt in the Straits Settlements the practice followed in this country under which the reception of such messages is carried out exclusively by the Administration. I may add that an arrangement has been reached between Reuter and the Straits Settlements Government, on terms which I understand are regarded as satisfactory, for the interception by the Government of Reuter's Rugby Service.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA (NATIVE TAXATION).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the financial prosperity of the Uganda protectorate, it is proposed to reduce the taxation now imposed on the native population?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The comparative prosperity which Uganda enjoyed last year has, I am glad to say, permitted the grant of some relief to the native taxpayer. Certain taxes have been abolished and others reduced; and the people of Uganda have also benefited from recent reductions in freight rates on the Kenya and Uganda Railway to the extent of about £250,000. The Uganda Government has announced its intention of carrying out further investigations into the incidence of certain other taxes during the year, but I would remind the hon. Member that the new and extensive programme


of development in social services, educational facilities and public works now in hand excludes the possibility of any substantial further reduction of taxation at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of a recent legal decision in Malta on the subject of taxation, he is yet in a position to make a statement on the future constitution of this island?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am at present awaiting receipt of a full copy of the judgment and other relevant documents in this case which the Governor is forwarding to me by mail. Until these are received I am not in a position to make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

AERODROME OBSTRUCTION (DEFINITION).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is his Department's definition of an aerodrome obstruction; and in what Air Ministry publication the definition is to be found?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): The definition of an aerodrome obstruction is given in paragraph 5 of Air Ministry Pamphlet No. 55, and is as follows:
Any object beyond the perimeter and within half a mile of the aerodrome which subtends a vertical angle of more than 3° 45 measured from the nearest point on the perimeter.

AERODROME SITES (SCOTLAND).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what towns in Scotland have been visited by, or on behalf of, his Department for examination for the suitability of sites to be developed as an aerodrome or for aeroplane purposes; whether he will consider Greenock, with the old Caird shipyard site at present unused, as a suitable base for an aeroplane service to the West of Scotland, the Western Isles, Ireland, and overseas; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

Lieut.-Coloned Muirhead: Seventeen towns in Scotland and several islands off the north and west coasts (the names

of which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT have been visited in response to inquiries regarding the suitability of sites for aerodromes. Greenock Harbour was licensed last year as a sea aerodrome, and I would be happy to arrange for an inspection of the old Caird shipyard if a local authority or other responsible concern contemplated the development of that site for aviation purposes.

Mr. Macquisten: Is not by far the best site for an aerodrome in the West of Scotland to be found on land near Campbeltown?

Mr. Maxton: Who wants to go there?

Following is the information:


The towns visited were:


Aberdeen.
Kilmarnock


Campbeltown.
Motherwell.


Dundee.
Perth.


Edinburgh.
Prestwick.


Falkirk.
Renfrew.


Glasgow.
Stirling.


Greenock.
Thurso.


Inverness.
Wick.


Irvine.



The islands visited were:


Shetlands.
Benbecula.


Orkneys.
Barra.


Lewis.
Skye.


North Uist.
Mull.


South Uist.
Islay.

AIRPORTS.

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of civil airports of each class opened during each of the past three years, together with the number now in the course of construction?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The number of civil aerodromes licensed for public use and opened in the years referred to was as follows:



Owned by local authorities.
In private ownership.


1935
…
6
2


1936
…
4
2


1937
…
5
1


Twelve aerodromes are known to be in course of construction by local authorities.

Mr. Robinson: Now that the Cadman Report has been published will my hon. and gallant Friend promise a more vigorous policy in developing the civil airports in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

STATISTICS.

Mr. Parker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what were the numbers of the first line and reserve aeroplanes on 1st March, 1937, of the following categories: fighters, bombers, Army and Fleet co-operation, flying boats, and torpedo bombers; what is the number of aeroplanes in reserve; and what is the increase in each category since that date?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: On 1st March, 1937, the Royal Air Force consisted of 25 fighter squadrons, 63 bomber squadrons, 10 Army co-operation squadrons, 14 general reconnaissance squadrons (including nine equipped with flying boats) and four torpedo bomber squadrons; and in addition there were the equivalent of 20 squadrons in the Fleet Air Arm. Since that date the following increases have been effected: five fighter squadrons, 20 bomber squadrons, five Army co-operation squadrons and three general reconnaissance squadrons (including one equipped with flying boats). It would not be in the public interest to state the numbers of aircraft held against the various types of squadrons.

CO-OPERATION (TERRITORIAL FORCES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the difficulties experienced by the searchlight and artillery units of the Territorial Forces in obtaining co-operation from the Royal Air Force in the provision of aircraft as targets for training purposes; that these units have in some cases to rely on civilian aircraft companies for the purpose at extra cost; and whether he will take steps to bring about more effective co-operation?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am not aware that there has been any failure on the part of the Air Ministry to provide adequate aircraft for the training of the units referred to. By agreement with the War Office the necessary co-operation is provided partly by Royal Air Force and partly by civil aircraft, an arrangement which provides effective co-operation on an economical basis, and relieves Royal Air Force units of routine flying which would be of comparatively small training value. The cost of hiring the civil aircraft is met by the Air Ministry.

Mr. Mander: If I bring to the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman some cases where lack of co-operation is taking place, will he go into the matter with a view to putting it right?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I will certainly go into it.

SABOTAGE.

Mr. Day: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the result of the inquiries that have been made relative to the actions of sabotage to bombing aeroplanes in the course of construction at the Ringway Aerodrome, Manchester; and what special police have now been put on to protect all Royal Air Force aircraft in the course of construction?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: It would not be in the public interest to state the result of the inquiries which have been made to date. As regards the second part of the question, the employment of special police is not considered to be necessary.

Mr. Day: Have any fresh acts of sabotage been discovered since the announcement was made in this House?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Not so far as I am aware.

Mr. Burke: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether, with regard to the Ringway Aerodrome, the machines left the factory in a perfect condition?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I cannot go into details of which I have no particular knowledge. I think they were still on factory premises, but I cannot be actually certain of that.

Mr. Burke: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that they were not on factory premises but were in a public aerodrome, and can he say whether or not the sabotage took place in the factory or in the aerodrome?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that the organised workpeople of this country deprecate action of this kind; and will he take strong action to deal with the people responsible, as there are certain organisations in this country which have for their object the creation of suspicion and provocation in order to provide excuses for dealing with organised workpeople?

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand from the previous answer of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he is unaware of the locus of the act of sabotage—whether it took place at the aerodrome or the factory?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: If further details are required, perhaps the hon. Member will put his question down.

Mr. Shinwell: I ask not for details, but where the act of sabotage took place, and is that not within the knowledge of the hon. and gallant Gentleman?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I prefer to refresh my memory on that.

BOMBERS (RANGE).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many bombing aircraft now in service have a total range out and home of 1,200 miles or more in calm air?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: It would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for by the hon. Member.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the range of every new type of bombing aircraft and the nominal load have been published by the "Times" air correspondent and by the journal called the "Aeroplane," and, in these circumstances, why cannot the range of each type of machine at least be given to the House of Commons?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: My Department cannot be expected to take their lead from Press organs.

Mr. Garro Jones: If the information has already leaked out with all the weight of authority of these two newspapers, why should the Minister withhold authentic information from the House of Commons? What damage could be done?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: All I can say is that any information as to numbers which has appeared in this or any other newspaper has no official authority whatever.

VOLUNTEER RESERVE.

Mr. Parker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air on what basis agreements are entered into between the Air Ministry and the proprietors or operators of aerodromes for the payment of services rendered in connection with the

training of pilots for the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The basis is a fee payable in respect of each flying hour flown by pilots undergoing training in accordance with the regulations laid down by the Air Ministry. A guarantee is given that payment will be made in respect of a minimum number of flying hours.

Mr. Parker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many agreements have been entered into between the Air Ministry and private bodies for the granting of subsidies to assist the training of pilots for the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve; and what proportion of these agreements were concluded after competitive tenders had been considered?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: There have been no subsidies granted for this purpose. The 23 agreements so far concluded provide for the payment of services rendered by the companies in connection with the training of pilots. Eighteen of these agreements were concluded with companies who either were the owners of the aerodromes and buildings or had obtained from the owners exclusive flying and/or training rights on the aerodromes. In these cases competitive tender action in connection with the agreements was not practicable. One of the agreements was concluded with a company who managed the aerodrome on behalf of the owners and the remaining four after competitive tenders had been received and considered.

PROMOTION FROM RANKS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of serving commissioned officers who have risen from the ranks; the number of commissioned officers who have been promoted from the ranks during the past 10 years; and what percentage this represents?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The answer to the first part of the question is 490. The answer to the second part of the question is 419; this represents 26 per cent. of the total entry to permanent commissions.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that this represents a proper democratic proportion?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I must say that it seems to be a very reasonable proportion.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that the Minister feels that it is reasonable that something like three-quarters of the officers should be drawn from one particular class?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I cannot accept that insinuation.

Mr. Sorensen: It is obvious.

Viscountess Astor: Can my hon. and gallant Friend get the hon. Member to define what he means by "class" when he says that?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

AIR-FRAMES.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he is aware that the supply of air-frames has been seriously delayed by, inter alia, the inability of manufacturers of duralumin sheet to give delivery; and what steps he has taken to increase the supply of this material?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am aware there was a period in the early part of the programme when suppliers of duralumin sheet were having difficulty in meeting demands. Additional rolling mills have been established the whole of which have not yet come into production. Present requirements however are being met: increased deliveries will be available to keep pace with the expansion of air-frame production. The position will be kept under review.

FLEET AIR ARM.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether, in his plans for the defence of the country, the Fleet Air Arm is taken into account, or whether its primary duty is to protect the Fleet wherever it may be?

Sir T. Inskip: I cannot accept the suggestion that the primary duty of the Fleet Air Arm is the protection of the Fleet. Each of the three Defence Services has its appropriate role in the defence of the country. As I indicated in the course of the Debate on Monday, the Fleet Air Arm is an integral part of His

Majesty's Navy and has its proper share in the duties which fall upon that Service, including the defence of British trade.

Colonel Wedgwood: The Fleet Air Arm, I take it, is not included in the 124 squadrons which we have arranged for the defence of the country?

Sir T. Inskip: The Fleet Air Arm is not included in what is generally called the "Metropolitan First-Line Strength."

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

BERNERA CAUSEWAY, ISLE OF LEWIS.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now considered the estimates for the Bernera causeway, in the Isle of Lewis, which were submitted to him; and when the work is likely to begin?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): Yes, Sir, but I cannot say when the county council will be prepared to carry out the work.

KINGSTON BY-PASS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that riders have made regular use of the grass verge along the Kingston by-pass from Coombe Hill to Richmond Park ever since this road was constructed; and whether, before coming to any final decision about the widening operations, he will ascertain whether arrangements can be made to leave these riders at least a narrow track, so as to prevent their having to use the highway itself?

Mr. Burgin: I am sympathetic to this request and will look further into the possibility of providing these special facilities between Coombe Hill and Richmond Park before widening operations on the section actually begin.

CHEAP FARES (RAILWAY COMPANIES' LIABILITIES).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that the railway company concerned agreed not to insist on their immunity from liability to the holders, or representatives of holders, of cheap tickets in the Castlecary disaster, and the desirability of having such immunity discontinued, he is now prepared to introduce legislation for this purpose?

Mr. Burgin: I am actively continuing my discussions with the railway companies on the question of the limitation of liability which they attach to cheap day, half day and evening tickets and workmen's tickets. I will let the hon. and learned Member know as soon as I am in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Mathers: Will the right hon. Gentleman make this information available to other hon. Members, perhaps by circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Burgin: What I propose to do is to notify the hon. and learned Member of the occasion on which he can profitably put down another question.

MOTOR DRIVING TESTS.

Sir Walter Smiles: asked the Minister of Transport what facilities exist for the testing of applicants for driving licences between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. on weekdays?

Mr. Burgin: If any applicant for a driving licence can show that he is unable to attend for examination during normal working hours, that is, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., arrangements are always made for testing outside those hours.

Sir W. Smiles: Has the applicant to pay any extra fee for this privilege?

Mr. Burgin: I have not that information handy, but I do not think so. I should like the House to understand that I do not encourage people to learn to drive at twilight.

Sir W. Smiles: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great number of people work very hard between 9 o'clock in the morning and 5 in the evening, and cannot attend any other time?

SPEED LIMIT, EASTERN AVENUE.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered a recommendation from the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee respecting a speed limit of 30 miles per hour on certain sections of Eastern Avenue, and when the recommendation is likely to be acted upon?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. I have accepted in part the recommendations of the committee and have given notice of my intention to make the necessary Order.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that there has been no kind of attempt at

interference on the part of the police in this area, or any kind of conflict between himself and any other authority?

Mr. Burgin: I do not understand at all the purport of the supplementary question. The question I was asked is whether any recommendation from this particular committee with regard to the 30-mile limit has been considered. The answer was, yes, and an order has been made.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any intimation of any kind of resistance from local bodies as to the recommendation he has made?

Mr. Burgin: I think the hon. Member had better put his question on the Paper in order that I may understand what he means.

WATERLOO BRIDGE (GRANT).

Sir William Davison: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that his predecessor, speaking on behalf of the Government after Waterloo Bridge had been pulled down, renewed the pledge he had given to the House of Commons in the previous year that if the House would allow the London County Council to borrow the money required for rebuilding the bridge instead of providing the cost out of the rates as originally intended, there would be no question of any grant from national funds, seeing that the bridge had been pulled down contrary to the decision of Parliament; and will he therefore say in what circumstances this pledge to Parliament by his predecessor has not been fulfilled?

Mr. Burgin: The circumstances in which the Government decided to make a grant towards the construction of the new bridge were explained fully in the answer I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) on 22nd December.

Sir W. Davison: The point of my question is, how comes it that the present Minister of Transport agrees to make a grant when his predecessor informed the House that in no circumstances would a grant be made. Relying on this assurance he asked the House to allow the county council to borrow the money required for the new bridge in order that the matter might be disposed of once and for all.

Mr. Burgin: I am aware of that fact, but circumstances have changed. The bridge has been completely demolished and London traffic facilities demand the construction of a new bridge. His Majesty's Government have decided to make a contribution towards the building of the new bridge, and I have no reason to think that the decision does not meet with the approval of the House.

Sir W. Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor definitely said that the Ministry would not make any grant—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

EXHIBITION, GLASGOW (MOTOR COACH SERVICES).

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he has taken to facilitate motor-coach travel to the Empire Exhibition at Glasgow this summer?

Mr. Burgin: I am anxious to see that all possible travel facilities are organised in connection with this important Empire Exhibition. The Traffic Commissioners, who are charged with the duty of authorising motor coach services, have published notices in their weekly publications reminding operators that early application should be made for licences to run services in connection with the Exhibition.

Sir T. Moore: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, will he remember that a great many visitors to the Exhibition will inevitably have to live on the West Coast and will he, therefore, make arrangements for long-term traffic tickets, as well as for short-term traffic tickets for visitors to the Exhibition?

Mr. Burgin: The hon. and gallant Member will understand that it is not my business to make the arrangements. That is the duty of the Traffic Commissioners. I have intimated that I am anxious that facilities should exist, and in pursuance of that the Traffic Commissioners have caused notices to be issued calling everyone's attention that application must be made to the right place and in good time.

Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of visitors to the Exhibition to the advantages of Bridgeton as a good place to live in?

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that already arrangements

have been made for a service over a very wide area by road and rail at very cheap fares to Glasgow during the period of the Exhibition?

TRUNK ROAD AND BRIDGE, SELBY.

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can now make any statement with regard to the provision of a toll-free bridge at Selby on the site of the existing bridge; and whether he can say if any decision has been made with regard to the projected route of the trunk road?

Mr. Burgin: I have notified the county councils of the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire of my intention to make an Order under Section 1 (3) of the Trunk Roads Act, declaring a new route to the south of Selby to be a trunk road. This new route is to cross the River Ouse a mile lower down than the route which was the subject of the recent inquiry, and when open for traffic will supersede that part of the present trunk road which passes over the toll bridge. I have also informed the councils that provided they will make a contribution under Sub-section (8) of Section 6 of the Trunk Roads Act at the rate of 40 per cent. of the cost, I shall be prepared, should the Order be made, to enter into negotiations for the acquisition of the toll bridge and the abolition of the tolls thereon; and on the same terms to construct a new toll-free bridge on the present site.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, CARMARTHENSHIRE.

Mr. Hopkin: asked the Attorney-General how many justices of the peace of the county of Carmarthen did not attend at a sitting of petty sessions at all during the year 1937?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I regret I am unable to give the hon. Member this information. Records of attendances are not rendered annually to the Lord Chancellor's Office, and it would not be practicable to call for such a return at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA.

Sir Granville Gibson: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department


whether he will review the appointments of trade and consular representatives of His Majesty's Government in South and Central America with a view to satisfying himself that the defence of British trade interests in those countries is fully competent and informative; and will he consult with British exporters, as represented by the chambers of commerce, with that end in view?

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The organisation of the Commercial, Diplomatic and Consular services is constantly under review for the purposes referred to by my hon. Friend. If he has any special point in mind, I should be grateful if he would bring it to my notice.

Sir G. Gibson: Is the hon. Member aware that there is a general impression among exporters of this country that the least competent of our trade and consular representatives are relegated to Central America and to South American Republics, and that there are many complaints that there is not the same efficient service in this part of the world as there is in other parts of the world?

Mr. Hudson: All I can say is that in the course of my recent tour of the chief industrial centres of the country I never met a single complaint from chambers of commerce as regards our consuls in South America. On the other hand, I received numerous testimonies to the active assistance which they give to British trade. The one complaint turned out on examination to be baseless.

ITALY.

Mr. George Strauss: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether in view of the great public interest in the matter, he will give an assurance that no substantial increase will be made in the credits under the exports credits scheme on exports to Italy without first informing this House?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: As the House has frequently been informed, export credits are guaranteed by the Export Credits Guarantee Department for the benefit of United Kingdom exporters, and the decision in each individual case is based solely on commercial and financial grounds. In the circumstances, I do not consider that any assurance of the kind suggested is either practicable or indeed desirable.

Mr. Strauss: Does not that mean, in fact, that it would be possible for the Department to arrange for credits amounting to millions of pounds, on good commercial grounds, in respect of goods to be exported to Italy, and that the House and the country would know nothing about it? Is that not an unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Mr. Hudson: It is clear that the credits will not be granted unless there is an effective and reasonable demand for them from the British firms concerned, and the decision will in each case be based on commercial and financial, and not on political, grounds.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House within what limits credits will be given to such undertakings?

Mr. Hudson: They will be given within the limits of commercial prudence, and will be decided by an independent advisory committee which has been set up under the terms of the Act passed last year.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEWERAGE SCHEMES (RURAL AREAS).

Mr. Hopkin: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered a copy of a resolution concerning rural sewerage schemes passed by the Llandilo Rural District Council; and what action he proposes to take in regard to financial assistance for rural areas?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): My right hon. Friend has under consideration the general question raised in the representations referred to, but he is afraid he can hold out no prospect of legislation for the purpose suggested during the present Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAIL SERVICE, WESTERN ISLES.

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will give full consideration to the need for a daily mail service to the Western Isles not already so served, with a view to taking early action to have this introduced?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): The question will be


considered and in this connection all relevant factors, such as the quantity of mails and the means of transport, will be taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSING LAWS (CODIFICATION).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation with a view to the codification of the existing licensing laws?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am afraid I cannot hold out any prospect of such legislation being undertaken at present.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread chaos, confusion and ineptitude which exist at the present time?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISASTERS (RELIEF FUNDS).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider instituting legislation to set up a national authority to administer relief funds connected with industrial and kindred disasters with a view to providing a uniform scale of payments to dependants, and so that all unused balances may be pooled for this purpose?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I am afraid that the hon. Member's suggestion involves a number of difficulties which render it impracticable.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL UNITED SERVICES INSTITUTION (EXHIBITION).

Mr. R. Gibson (for Mr. David Adams): asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that last week there was exhibited in a window of the Royal United Services Museum, Whitehall, a cat-o'-nine-tails; and whether, in view of the undesirability of exhibiting to the public this instrument of torture, he will make it a condition of continuing the grant to the funds of this institution that no objects should in future be exhibited which offend the public conscience?

Mr. Shakespeare: I am informed that the exhibit in question did appear in one of the windows of the museum. As regards the second part of the question, a small grant is made annually from Navy Votes to the Royal United Services Institution in recognition of the value of the facilities offered by it in the education and training of officers in the study and art of war. I should not, however, feel justified in making it a condition of the grant that any particular object is or is not exhibited in the institution's museum.

Mr. Mathers: Does not the Minister think it is time that the public conscience was offended by such an instrument?

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. E. Smith (for Mr. T. Smith): asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of old age pensions who have received public assistance; and the total cost during each of the last three years in the area covered by the public assistance committee of the West Riding County Council?

Mr. Bernays: On 1st January, 1938, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 9,026 old age pensioners in the West Riding of Yorkshire Administrative County who were in receipt of poor relief. As regards the last part of the question, the returns received in the Ministry of Health do not distinguish the cost of poor relief to old age pensioners.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. E. Smith (for Mr. T. Smith): asked the Minister of Pensions the number of beds available at the Roehampton hospital for the treatment of ex-service men; the number of cases treated during 1937; and the average length of time each patient was in hospital?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): The number of equipped beds available for officers and men is 414. Two thousand one hundred and ninety-five cases were treated during the year 1937 and the average length of stay of those discharged was 79 days.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIA (UNITED KINGDOM MIGRANTS).

Mr. E. Smith (for Mr. T. Smith): asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that the Australian Cabinet have agreed to the immediate resumption of immigration from this country; and what are the conditions attached to the same?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Marquess of Hartington): Yes, Sir. The Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia announced on 7th March that, in cooperation with the United Kingdom Government, the Commonwealth Government had decided to grant assisted passages in respect of certain individuals and categories of migrants from the United Kingdom for whom openings or a demand existed in Australia. The two classes of migrants falling under this arrangement would be in the first instance:

(1) persons resident in the United Kingdom who are nominated by relatives or friends already in Australia or by approved organisations;
(2) migrants, such as household workers or youths for farm work, specially requisitioned by a State Government.

Generally, the arrangements contemplate the provision of assisted passages only in cases where opportunities for employment are available, and where a nomination or requisition has been put forward and endorsed in Australia. The Commonwealth authorities in London would satisfy themselves as to the suitability of the nominees. I may add that the Commonwealth Prime Minister also indicated that when the Commonwealth Government introduce legislation relating to National Insurance, provision would be embodied to enable reciprocal arrangements with the United Kingdom to be made.

Mr. Mabane: Can the Noble Lord say what is the amount that will remain to be paid by the intending migrant?

Marquess of Hartington: Under the assisted passage arrangement, it would be one-third.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

CADMAN COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether there will be an early day for a Debate on the Cadman Committee's Report?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I propose to arrange for a Debate to take place early next week. I will make a further statement when I announce Business tomorrow.

Mr. Attlee: I wish to give notice that, quite apart from the specific issues concerning civil aviation which are raised in the Cadman Report, I shall, on the occasion of the Debate on the Air Estimates, press for a full inquiry into the administration of the Air Ministry, in view of the growing evidence that all is not well in the administration of that Department.
May I also ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to ask the House to take to-night?

The Prime Minister: We are moving the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule in order to obtain the Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimates on the Paper. We hope also to be able to obtain the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimates considered on 1st March and 8th March.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 136.

Division No. 125.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)


Albery, Sir Irving
Bennett, Sir E. N.
Bull, B. B.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bernays, R. H.
Bullock, Capt. M.


Apsley, Lord
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Burghley, Lord


Assheton, R.
Bossom, A. C.
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Boulton, W. W.
Burton, Col. H. W.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittarl
Butler, R. A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Boyoe, H. Leslie
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Carver, Major W. H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Castlereagh, Viscount


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)




Channon, H.
Hapworth, J.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Higgs, W. F.
Raid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Holdsworth, H
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Holmes, J. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hulbert, N. J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hunter, T.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cooke, J. D, (Hammersmith, S.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Salmon, Sir I.


Courthope, Cot. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Salt, E. W.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Keeling, E. H.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Sandys, E. D.


Davidson, Viscountess
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Savery, Sir Servington


Davison, Sir W. H.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Scott, Lord William


De Chair, S. S.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Selley, H. R.


De la Bere, R.
Lees-Jones, J.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Denville, Alfred
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Doland, G. F.
Lloyd, G. W.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Duggan, H. J.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Somerset, T.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Dunglass, Lord
McKie, J. H.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Eastwood, J. F.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Macquisten, F. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Ellis, Sir G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Emery, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Marsden, Commander A.
Tate, Mavis C.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Everard, W. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Touche, G. C.


Fildes, Sir H.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Train, Sir J.


Fleming, E. L.
Moreing, A. C.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Morgan, R. H.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wakefield, W. W.


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otlay)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Nall, Sir J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Gledhill, G.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Goldie, N. B.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Warrender, Sir V.


Granville, E. L.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Patrick, C. M.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Petherick, M.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Grigg, Sir E. W. M
Pilkington, R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Grimston, R. V.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Porritt, R. W.
Wise, A. R.


Hannah, I. C.
Procter, Major H. A.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Harbord, A.
Radford, E. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hartington, Marquess of
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Ramsbotham, H.



Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rankin, Sir R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Cape, T.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Charleton, H. C.
Gallacher, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Chater, D.
Gardner, B. W.


Ammon, C. G.
Cluse, W. S.
Garro Jones, G. M.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Cooks, F. S.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. G. R.
Cove, W. G.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Barnes, A. J.
Daggar, G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Barr, J.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Gibbins, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)


Benson, G.
Day, H.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Bevan, A.
Dobbie, W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Bromfield, W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Grenfell, D. R.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Ede, J. C.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Buchanan, G.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Burke, W. A.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)







Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
McGovern, J.
Silkin, L.


Hardie, Agnes
MacLaren, A.
Silverman, S. S.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Maclean, N.
Simpson, F. B.


Hayday, A.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Mander, G. le M.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Marshall, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Mathers, G.
Sorensen, R. W


Hollins, A.
Maxton, J.
Stephen, C.


Hopkin, D.
Messer, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Jagger, J.
Montague, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Muff, G.
Thorne, W.


Jonas, A. C. (Shiplay)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Thurtle, E.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Owen, Major G.
Tinker, J. J.


Jonas, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parker, J.
Tomlinson, G.


Kelly, W. T.
Parkinson, J. A.
Viant, S. P.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Pearson, A.
Walker, J.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Watkins, F. C.


Lathan, G.
Price, M. P.
Watson, W. McL.


Lawson, J. J.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Leach, W.
Ridley, G.
Westwood, J.


Lee, F.
Ritson, J.
White, H. Graham


Leonard, W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland. N.)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Leslie, J. R.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Logan, D. G.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Lunn, W.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Seely, Sir H. M.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


McEntee, V. La T.
Sexton, T. M.



McGhee, H. G.
Shinwell, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to modify certain provisions of the Adelphi Estate Act, 1933." [Adelphi Estate Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers on the President, Vice-Presidents, Treasurers, and Governors of the Middlesex Hospital; and for other purposes." [Middlesex Hospital Bill [Lords.]

ADELPHI ESTATE BILL [Lords].

MIDDLESEX HOSPITAL BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1937.

CLASS II.

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £85,664, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special Grants and Payments, including Grants in Aid; and Sundry Services arising out of the War.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: May I ask for your guidance, Sir Dennis, on a matter of procedure. I understand that we are now about to discuss a Supplementary Estimate relating to certain foreign matters. As you are aware, there are other Supplementary Estimates down for consideration to-day. Would it not be for the convenience of the Committee if there were an allocation of time as between these various Estimates. The other Estimates which are to be considered include one in respect of broadcasting and also one in respect of the Ministry of Labour in which many hon. Members are particularly interested. If there were an allocation of time it would be very convenient to know when the Estimate concerning the Ministry of Labour was likely to be reached.

The Chairman: I have not heard anything of any suggestion or arrangement as to an allocation of time, and, of course, it is quite outside my power to do anything of the sort, but meantime the hon. Member can communicate through the usual channels with the object of finding out whether he can obtain any agreement as to allocation, and if such agreement be arrived at I would put it before the Committee and ask whether general assent is given to it.

Mr. Buchanan: I was wondering whether we might not occasionally have a little discussion about our own people.

Mr. David Grenfell: Could you, Sir Dennis, give any indication to the Committee of the scope of the discussion which will be allowed on these various Estimates? We would like to know how far discussion will be allowed to extend, for instance, on such matters as the Committee for Non-Intervention in Spain, and whether on that item in the Estimates some licence will be permitted in dealing with the general question?

The Chairman: This particular Estimate, so far as it concerns the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, namely, intervention in Spain, is a case of a very small increase, and I suggest to the Committee generally that if they want to get an idea of the scope of debate on the Supplementary Estimates they can generally get it from the explanatory statement at the end of the several Votes. In this case, in connection with non-intervention in Spain, hon. Members will see on page 11, in the last paragraph but one, that the whole reason of the increase arises from the present estimation that the expenditure to be met by the Government on the scheme of observation in Portugal will be less than was expected. It seems to me that that is about the only thing that can be discussed on this particular item. With regard to the other small matters, I think that most of them are in the nature of new services. They are the grant to His Majesty's Ambassador in China, evacuation of British refugees from China, the relief of distress in Spain, the evacuation of refugees from Spain, compensation for stores requisitioned in Iraq during the War, and British contribution to preliminary expenses connected with the withdrawal of volunteers from Spain.

Mr. Grenfell: On the Vote for the British contribution in connection with the withdrawal of volunteers from Spain, can we discuss the rate of withdrawal, the extent to which withdrawal has gone and the general programme of withdrawal in the light of the present situation?

The Chairman: It is a little difficult for me to say exactly what will or will not be in order in what may be said later. I do not think that the whole situation in


Spain or the question of the policy of which this is a part can be discussed.

Mr. Cocks: While I quite understand that the principle of non-intervention could not be discussed on item ZZ, could the actual working or non-working of the Non-Intervention Committee be discussed?

The Chairman: The hon. Member speaks of non-intervention expenditure. That does not come under the heading RR.

Mr. Cocks: I was referring to the withdrawal of volunteers from Spain, which is under Sub-head ZZ.

The Chairman: Hon. Members will have to find what they can do during the Debate. I am obliged by the instructions of the House to keep to the rules with regard to Supplementary Estimates. Those rules are strict. Except in the case of new services the Debate must be confined strictly to the reasons for an alteration of the original Estimate.

4.4 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The Supplementary Estimates before us relate to the Foreign Office, Class II, Diplomatic and Consular Services, and certain expenses dealing particularly with the Assyrians in connection with the League of Nations. I shall therefore, with the permission of the Committee, confine my observations to the details of these Supplementary Estimates. It might be valuable if I introduced all the Supplementary Estimates in one general series of remarks. I shall try to divide them under four different heads of administrative expenses, expenses in connection with Spain, expenses in connection with China, and expenses in connection with the settlement of the Assyrians. The Committee are always reluctant to approve extra sums for Supplementary Estimates, but on looking at the total figures they will see that the amount is not unreasonable in view of the great and varied wreckage that might have been cast on our shores by the great storms now going on in the world.

The Chairman: I do not know whether I understood the hon. Gentleman's intention. We have before us at the moment one Vote, which I have read out, and it

applies to Class II, Vote 2, with a number of sub-heads, and those sub-heads do not cover the question of the Assyrians.

Mr. Butler: All these matters are covered by the Department which I represent, and I thought it would be convenient if I made my introductory remarks on the subjects of these three different heads; but if it be your wish, I will confine my remarks to the Vote that has been read, and speak again on each occasion when a new Vote is moved.

The Chairman: If the Committee approve, I have no objection to the hon. Member doing what he apparently originally intended, but I want to be clear what it is he means when he speaks of three sub-heads. The first one, as I have said, is Class II, Vote 2; the next one I imagine to be Class II, Vote 1, Foreign Office; and the third one is Class II, Vote 3.

Mr. Butler: Yes, they are the three Votes, the Foreign Office, Diplomatic and Consular Services and the League of Nations.

The Chairman: Hon. Members may find it convenient with general assent to talk on these three Votes together, but we shall have to put the Votes separately.

Mr. Butler: Sometimes it is useful to give a general review of the different Votes. With the consent of the Committee I shall revert to the plan I originally suggested, but as there are many details it might be valuable to sum them up under different heads. The administrative heads are Foreign Office salaries and incidental expenses, A and D; then Diplomatic and Consular salaries and allowances, item O; and expenses in connection with pipes in Iraq, item YY. These particular administrative expenses are outlined in the Estimate. It will be seen that there is an additional sum required for Foreign Office salaries, and as shown on page 8 of the Estimate it is due to the increased provision required for the Passport Office owing to the issue of a larger number of passports. Extra staff had to be employed in the summer and considerable overtime was worked. The extra expenditure there was £4,800.
Then there were the cost of additional staff and the extra pay necessitated by setting up the Committee for Non-Intervention in Spain. That extra cost con-


sisted of the payment of an interpreter and of some extra typists, and there was some extra expenditure at the Foreign Office to meet the political situation abroad, which entailed the addition of one clerk in the News Department and extra help in the Registry and the Library. There is no very controversial question arising under these administrative heads. Hon. Members will see the total sum set out on page 7 of the Estimates. The Appropriations-in-Aid come to only £10 less than these expenses and these are receipts from passport fees. Therefore the Committee are being asked to vote an extra sum of only £10 under that head. Under head O, the other administrative question which we are considering, in the original Estimate for the general Consular Services—this excludes China—a reduction of £20,000 was made in the total sum on account of savings caused by vacancies and leave of absence. It is now known that this saving will amount to only about £10. In the main Estimates already presented the total is given each year, and from it a deduction is made owing to vacancies, but this deduction was in fact too much and therefore this sum is included.
With regard to the other item, relating to pipes in Iraq, this is not a matter which need detain us very long. Certain waterpipes were taken over by the British forces in Basra during the War and the military authorities paid the full sum for them to the Civil authorities. It was used to help balance the Budget. It is now decided that it is time to repay the owner of those pipes and the sum is to be paid to the owner.
I now come to the points that arise in connection with Spain. The heads which I think it would be convenient to take are the application of the Non-Intervention Agreement, which is item RR; the contribution to the Red Cross, item WW; the evacuation of refugees, item XX; and arrangements preliminary to withdrawal, ZZ. I hope that it will be convenient to consider all the points connected with Spain in one block. Item RR, if read out, sounds very complicated, but the extra sum required can be fairly easily explained. The cost of both schemes of observation, on the Portuguese and the Spanish-French frontiers, originally amounted to £834,000, with the addition of £64,000 which the observation on the

Portuguese-Spanish frontier was to cost, making a total of £898,000. Of this 80 per cent. was to be met by the Big Five Powers. Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany and the Union of Soviet Republics. The share of each of the Big Five was to amount to £143,680, that is 16 per cent. of the total sum referred to. In our case, as the whole of the cost of the observation on the Portuguese-Spanish frontier was to be borne by the British Government, we subtracted the £64,000 which that observation was costing, and that has reduced our liability to £79,680.
We are told that £48,000 will in fact be the cost of this observation on the Spanish-Portuguese frontier, so we should find that the Estimate should result in a repayment to the general fund of £143,680, which would be our share of the general observation, of the sum of £16,000. We have, however, included a figure here of £12,000, because we do not anticipate that the total sum of £16,000 will be necessary. Therefore, we are paying back £12,000 with which we had credited ourselves on the strength of our taking over the observation on the Spanish-Portuguese frontier. The fact that this total sum for observation on the Spanish-Portuguese frontier is less than we had anticipated is largely due to the fact that observation has been in suspense, and it has not been found that the same amount of money was needed as was originally estimated.
Now I come to the head WW, which deals with the "relief of distress in Spain"—a contribution of £5,000 to the Red Cross in Spain. His Majesty's Government, as is known, are signatories of the Geneva Red Cross Convention, and we received in June of last year an appeal from the International Red Cross Committee for financial assistance in the work undertaken by them on behalf of victims of the civil war in Spain. It was explained in that appeal that the funds available from other sources were not sufficient to enable the committee's work in Spain to be carried on. His Majesty's Government have always attached very considerable importance to the relief of non-combatants in Spain, and they have looked for any impartial scheme by which this could be carried out, a scheme on an international basis which might be agreeable to both the contending parties. I think it is well known to hon. Members what good work the International Red


Cross Committee does in regard to such questions as the supply of medical stores to both sides, the organisation of information bureaux, from which news of individual Spaniards may be obtained, the negotiation of exchanges of prisoners and hostages, the provision of evacuation facilities for the civil population of Madrid, and various forms of work on behalf of prisoners. Those are all duties which the International Red Cross has performed and is performing with success, so that in the light of the evidence given of their work, with the consent of both sides, and after taking steps to satisfy ourselves that a number of other Governments were making contributions, His Majesty's Government decided upon the contribution which is in this Supplementary Estimate. I would only add that this sum must not be taken by the Committee as being a final figure of what might be granted to the International Red Cross in this connection.
Another heading under Spain is XX, "evacuation of refugees." This refers to the evacuation of refugees from Madrid, and a sum of £33,000 is included in the Supplementary Estimate. These refugees were evacuated from the foreign missions in Madrid, and this was a humanitarian step which resulted in the saving of many lives and was urged by His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Valencia. The Spanish Government were at that time conducting, under the auspices of the International Red Cross, negotiations with various foreign Governments for the issue of passports to all except men of military age, and between 8th November and 19th December a vessel which was chartered by us succeeded in evacuating no fewer, in all, than 4,100 civilian refugees, who reached the coast by motor services organised by the Acting British Consul at Madrid. I should like to pay a tribute to the authorities concerned and to His Majesty's Consular representatives, who so successfully carried out this excellent piece of work. In addition, there were certain expenses involved in transporting similar refugees in His Majesty's hospital ship "Maine," a ship which some of us have heard of before. The work of the Navy in evacuating refugees is well known, and I do not think it needs any extra tribute of mine to the excellent work that has been done. I would only add that a considerable portion of this expenditure, I am pleased to

tell the Committee, will be recoverable from the various Governments in whose missions the refugees were sheltered. Therefore, at a later date, Appropriations-in-Aid will include a sum which will help to repay the £33,000 for which we are asking now.
I now come to the other heading relating to Spain, ZZ, which deals with preliminary arrangements for the evacuation and withdrawal of volunteers. This particular sum seems a very small one, but if the withdrawal of volunteers is successful, the question at issue is a very large one. In deference to what you said, Sir Dennis, I will restrict my observations to the question on the Paper, which is a request for the sum of £800 for preliminary expenses connected with the withdrawal of volunteers, to which we all attach great importance, if we can make it successful. Pending a settlement of financial arrangements, certain preliminary expenses have been incurred, and these are expected to amount to a certain sum, of which this is a preliminary instalment. The actual expenses referred to here, namely, £800, relate, I am told, to the appointment of a doctor who would advise as to the arrangements made for the creation, for example, of evacuation camps in connection with the withdrawal of these volunteers, and the Committee is being asked to vote this sum now in order that the preliminary arrangements for the withdrawal of volunteers can be proceeded with. I cannot go further into detail at this stage, but the whole question is an important one and is being considered in all its bearings by the Non-Intervention Committee.
Let me now tell the Committee something about the problems which arise in connection with China. The first point is a grant to our Ambassador at that time, Sir Hughe Knatchbull-Hugessen, which comes under the heading UU. I do not wish to recapitulate all the incidents which occurred at that time. His Majesty's Ambassador, as is known, was seriously wounded by a machine-gun bullet as a result of an attack by two Japanese planes. Let it be said that His Majesty's Government decided themselves to pay the grant for which we are asking the Committee, a sum of £5,000, a grant which they consider is consonant with the importance of the occasion. I am happy to say that the ex-Ambassador's health is improving steadily, and we sincerely


hope that it will be restored so as to enable him to continue to render that conspicuous service to the country which he has given in the past. I am sure the Committee will have pleasure in voting this sum of £5,000 for the purpose which I have described.
I turn next to another heading under China, and that is VV, "evacuation and maintenance of British refugees." This relates to the cost of transport to Hong Kong and the maintenance there of British subjects, mostly women and children, evacuated mainly from Shanghai on the outbreak of hostilities between China and Japan. At the time that this expenditure was incurred, the Committee will remember, there appeared to be considerable ground for thinking that the international settlement south of the Soochow Creek might be endangered by land and air hostilities and that, therefore, the safety of the inhabitants of the international settlement might be jeopardised. British subjects were therefore advised to leave without delay, and approximately 3,800 women and children and 300 men, all in straitened circumstances, were removed, thanks to the arrangements made by our Consular representatives, to whom I would like to pay a further tribute at this moment. Their work has been extremely hard, they have not known any regular hours, and their responsibility has been immense.
We are asking for a Supplementary Estimate of £15,000 for this purpose. Before these refugees were evacuated they were asked to undertake to repay the cost of passage and the cost of their maintenance on their arrival in Hong Kong, but, as I have described to the Committee, many of them being in straitened circumstances, they were unable to pay the preliminary expense themselves. There has also been a certain amount of forced evacuation from their homes of British subjects who fled up the river to Hankow, away from the tide of war advancing up the Yangtze. I can assure the Committee at this stage that the future position in Hankow will be carefully watched, and in particular the possibility of establishing a zone which will be free, as far as possible, from the operations of war if they ever reach that city.
The last heading in relation to China is QQ, on which there is an anticipated

shortage of receipts of fines and fees for services in China in consequence of the Sino-Japanese dispute. That shortage is quite understandable, since the normal activities of peace have been suspended, and all types of Consular fees for services, visas, and so on have not come in to the normal extent.
Now let me deal with the last Supplementary Estimate, which relates to the expenditure needed to settle satisfactorily the Assyrians on the Khabur settlement. The details of that will be found on page 15 of the Supplementary Estimates. The problem of the Assyrians has been a difficult one, but it is not for me to outline the whole history of the case this afternoon. We are looking for a solution. No solution can be completely satisfactory, but we hope that some success will attend the establishment of about 9,000 Assyrians on the Khabur settlement. Let me remind the Committee that after the unhappy incidents of 1933 the Assyrian Committee of the League Council considered the question, and searches were made all over the world, including the British Colonial Empire, for a place where they could be settled. Hopes were finally placed on the Ghab scheme in the French Mandated Territory of Syria. This, unfortunately, had to be abandoned in July, 1936, owing to the sudden change in the Syrian political situation, due to the approaching termination of the French Mandate in Syria, and efforts were made to solve the problem in another way.
As the result of a visit of the French and British members of the Assyrian Committee in the early summer of last year, a scheme in north-east Syria was elaborated which could be expected to give a good chance of economic prosperity for settlers. A definite decision was reached by the League Council in September to reorganise the River Khabur scheme on a permanent basis. We undertook to pay about 43 per cent. of the cost, Iraq undertook to pay a similar amount, and the League the rest, amounting to just under 15 per cent. This £4,000 is a preliminary contribution to the amount deemed necessary to proceed with the work, and which will mostly consist of water wheels, and so forth, to enable cultivation to be undertaken by the settlers. The Committee is being asked on this Estimate for an extra sum of only £10 owing to the fact that there have been various savings on the contri-


bution towards expenses in connection with the League of Nations, such as savings on exchange in buying Swiss francs, on travelling expenses, and on the piece of sculpture for the new League of Nations building.
To conclude the story of the Khabur scheme, in which the Committee has already taken a great interest, the total required at this stage will be £4,000, and that is, as I have explained, offset by certain savings. The ultimate expenditure on the Khabur scheme is expected to be £18,000. That is not nearly so much as the Ghab scheme would have been because the drainage and communication charges are not so much. It is hoped that this scheme will give a better economic future for the Assyrians outside Iraq who have been settled there since 1933, and some since 1936. I feel sure the Committee will have no hesitation in voting this small extra sum or the other sums referred to under the many heads I have had to cover. I would remind the Committee that they have covered administrative questions; questions relating to Spain, chiefly the evacuation of refugees; questions relating to China, and especially the sum to be paid to our Ambassador; and, in conclusion, there has been an amount necessary for the settlement of the Assyrians.

The Chairman: In order to get the position quite clear, I take it that it is the pleasure of the Committee to discuss all these three Votes together, with the necesary result that, after the first one has been disposed of, the next two will be put without further discussion. Is that generally approved by the Committee?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Grenfell: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
We welcome very much the appearance of the Under-Secretary at the Box in charge of these Estimates. I am, personally, sorry that the procedure of the House did not permit him freedom to indulge in the glorious flights of poetic fancy. When he opened with the great assemblage of varied wreckage which might have been thrown upon our shores I thought that it was a very good beginning, but he was pulled up sharply by the Chair. He then divided the Estimates and his remarks into some form

of order. He said something about the Assyrians, and I was reminded of a piece of poetry about when the Assyrians folded their tents and silently stole away. Well, the Assyrians disappeared from the hon. Gentleman's speech as soon as he mentioned them, and they only came back at the end of his speech, when I thought they stole away altogether. We find it difficult to deal with the Estimates in this way, and we are sorry that we are not able to get far more information. I hope that before the Vote is taken more information will be given on the very pertinent matters which we wish to raise.
The hon. Member began by dealing with the administrative expenses of the Foreign Office and he rightly pointed to certain salaries which are required under the various Votes. I find under Vote A that increased provision is required for the Passport Office owing to the issue of a larger number of passports. I do not know whether that was in connection with Spain. The hon. Member also called attention to the cost of the additional staff and extra pay necessitated by the setting up of the Committee for Non-Intervention in Spain and by the political situation abroad. We would like to know what kind of work that extra staff is doing and why it has been necessary to enlarge the staff in view of the meagre results obtained by the activities of the Non-Intervention Committee. The Committee is not producing the results which we have a right to expect from a body of such long standing, and a body entrusted with such momentous responsibilities for the interests of our own country and the peace of the world. Nobody would object to the employment of additional staff, be it small or large, if the full purpose of the Non-Intervention Committee were being brought to greater realisation.

The Chairman: I must warn the hon. Member now that the whole policy of intervention and whether it is successful or not cannot be discussed. He certainly cannot do so on this item for a small increase of staff; it might quite conceivably be the case that if the Non-Intervention Committee's efforts were unsuccessful it would require a bigger staff than if it were successful.

Mr. Grenfell: I want to know whether we are justified in voting for this extra staff, and I thought I might be in order in inquiring whether the results of the


work of the staff of the Non-Intervention Committee justified the additional expense. We are told that there is one interpreter, but we are not told whether he is in Spain or in Portugal, whether he is stationed here, or whether he is employed by the Committee elsewhere. We are not told whether the typists are working in London or are engaged somewhere else in the service of the Non-Intervention Committee. I imagine that they are engaged in attendance upon the Committee and serving the meetings of the Committee from time to time. It is due from me on this side to say that we are disappointed to find that the expenditure of the Non-Intervention Committee is higher than the estimated budget. We feel that we are not getting full value for the money, and that this expenditure is largely wasted.
The Under-Secretary then, for the convenience of the Committee and for his own convenience in the circumstances, coupled together Votes RR, WW, XX and ZZ, and I will make some observations upon each. I thought that on Vote RR we should be permitted to say more than your discretion, Sir Dennis, apparently allows us. I am sorry to find that under this Vote the increase of expenditure should not be the subject of far greater explanation. We have been told the figures, which are familiar to those who have read the history of non-intervention. We know that 27 States joined together to meet the expenses of administration in varying proportions. The greater burden was carried by five large Powers, and 22 States between them bore only 20 per cent. of the cost. The Under-Secretary told us that it looks very complicated, and I feel sure that, when he reads his speech to-morrow, he will find that his explanation was complicated too. We gather from him that there is a surplus of money in hand, that the expenditure is less by a considerable sum than was anticipated, and that certain adjustments have been made on account of the cessation of the activities of the observers on the Portuguese frontier.
As I understand the explanation, the observations have been in suspension, the Portuguese frontier has been opened, and, therefore, the expenditure has been reduced. During the period when the frontier has been opened, large quantities of munitions could easily have passed into

Spain because of the suspension of observations. That is a most deplorable thing. There is a considerable quantity of foreign personnel and material in Spain, and no one knows how much is due to the cessation of observations on the Portuguese frontier during the period referred to. The £12,000 which has been saved may have led to a considerable increase in the flow of munitions into Spain which it was intended should be stopped by observers on the frontier. Some explanation should be given to the Committee regarding the period of suspense and the lines of communication which were left unattended during this time.
Head WW refers to the Red Cross work in Spain, and a Vote of £5,000 has been allocated for the purpose of assisting the International Red Cross. The hon. Gentleman told us that this Red Cross is an international body with headquarters in Spain for the time being, and that it has sufficient international confidence to attend to questions of mediation, the exchange of soldiers, the evacuation of foreign nationals in Madrid, and a variety of other purposes. When I was in Madrid in November or December of 1936 I saw the representative of this body, and knew that he was doing some work at that time, but I should like to know whether the evacuations from Madrid have been confined solely to foreign nationals who were recommended for evacuation on the grounds of personal safety by the heads of the foreign embassies in that city.
There was a tremendous problem of evacuation in Madrid 18 months ago. We called the attention of the International Red Cross to it, and I think the matter was taken by the Foreign Office to the League of Nations at Geneva, and that there was also some discussion in the central office of the International Red Cross in Switzerland. I should like to know whether there is any possibility of utilising the services of this body for the evacuation of a large number of the civilian population, both the people of Madrid itself and refugees who have come in from the surrounding country. There is in that city a large surplus of population beyond its ordinary residential capacity, and it was urgent even 15 or 18 months ago that those people should be evacuated. I do not know the position to-day, but I should like to know whether this contract with the Interna-


tional Red Cross could not be developed so that they might play a still greater part in evacuating the civil population.
Then we come to the item "XX, Evacuation of refugees from Spain." This deals with the same class of people, I assume, but not under the same auspices. The Governments responsible undertook the evacuation of 4,000 non-combatants who had taken refuge in certain foregin embassies in Madrid. I do not know whether I risk being controversial in asking whether careful inquiries were made into the bona fides of some of these people. We were told in Madrid that certain foreign embassies had given shelter to a large number of people who were deemed to be members of General Franco's party and pledged to his cause. In some there were said to be as many as 500 or 600 of these persons, and there was some evidence of that.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Is it in order for hon. Members to make reflections against the embassies of foreign Powers in a certain capital?

Mr. Grenfell: There is no reflection. These are well-known facts. The hon. and gallant Member himself should know something about it. He would hear from the Foreign Office, if he made inquiries, that reports have been made about this matter and that the information has been well established. Certain embassies in Madrid were closed because they were known to have sheltered partisans, and I should like to know whether supervision was exercised over the withdrawal of these people, and whether the Spanish Government was taken into consultation. As I have said 4,000 people have been taken away. It was a tremendous undertaking, in view of the extent to which Madrid was dependent upon motor transport for its daily existence. To give even road space and to provide vehicles to take 4,000 people to the coast was an act of generosity and consideration by the authorities of Madrid. I only wish that all foreigners who chanced to be in Spain and were not involved in the struggle could have been taken away from any possible danger. We must be careful, however, not to make it possible for partisans to come and go, and to be given shelter under the auspices of a movement such as this, when there is no guarantee that their evacuation will not

be followed by further action against the Spanish Government.
Then we come to item ZZ, and on that I should like to take your advice, Sir Dennis, as to whether I could venture upon a suggestion. It is a new Vote, a kind of token Vote of money for preliminary steps in the anticipated withdrawal of volunteers from Spain. I say "volunteers" because that is the word used here. There are volunteers on the Government side and also on the insurgent side, but there are on both sides a very large number of foreign troops who are not volunteers. The great bulk of the foreign troops on the insurgent side are undoubtedly men who have been sent to Spain with the approval and under the auspices of their own Governments, and people who go in' that way, whether conscripts or not, cannot be said to be volunteers in the same way as any one who volunteers as an individual to take part in the struggle. There were Irish volunteers who went out to General Franco, many of whom, I understand, have since come home, and there have been other volunteers, English, French and American, taking part on Franco's side. They are on a par with the volunteers who went to the Government side. I met Germans, Italians, Poles, Czechs, Belgians, Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen among the volunteers on the Government side. I understand that this token Vote implies the withdrawal of foreign troops from Spain and is not confined to the genuine volunteers.

The Chairman: I understood that the hon. Member was putting a point of Order to me, or asking my advice whether this could be discussed.

Mr. Grenfell: The point to which I was coming is that the Under-Secretary spoke of this as a Vote for the preliminary steps to be taken towards a withdrawal, and I should like to know what is to follow those preliminary steps. Can we discuss the extent to which withdrawal is anticipated, and whether this is to initiate a stream of withdrawals which will cost an infinitely larger sum?

The Chairman: No, in my opinion this is not the occasion on which that can be discussed. Pending the settlement of the actual arrangements for withdrawal certain preliminary expenses are being met, and this Vote is to be regarded as merely


an indication that there is on foot a proposal for withdrawal. The Foreign Office is dealing with these preliminaries, and no doubt correspondence is going on; I think the Under-Secretary implied that certain advice was being obtained; but as these are expenses for these preliminary steps only I do not think there is much which can be discussed, unless it be whether or not any negotiations should be entered into for the withdrawal.

Mr. Grenfell: The Under-Secretary himself said this was a very large question, and that if the preliminary steps were successful a very large undertaking would be set on foot.

Mr. Butler: I do not think I used those words.

Mr. Grenfell: No, I do not suppose we should use the same vocabulary. I am willing to be corrected. Will the Under-Secretary tell us what he meant by his statement?

Mr. Butler: I said this was a very long question and that we were asking for certain expenses to deal with preliminary inquiries.

Mr. Grenfell: I think we can agree that there is no difference between us, except that I wish to know what are the steps which are to follow, what withdrawal of volunteers does he anticipate, and the conditions. This would be a waste of time and public money if the preliminary steps were to lead to nothing else, but if this is an essential step towards a larger programme we should not object, and that is the matter on which I should like to have further light thrown. This is an important and an urgent question. A great deal depends on what we can achieve in the way of making non-intervention successful. As I understand it, the Non-Intervention Committee is marking time, and none of this expenditure would be justified if it makes no more progress than it has made so far. It is waiting for an agreement on the fundamental issue of the numbers of foreign troops which are to be withdrawn.
There has been correspondence with the Italian Government regarding the withdrawal of foreign volunteers from Spain. His Majesty's Government sent a statement to the Italian Government on 2nd October, 1937, and a reply came on

9th October, and the points of agreement and the points yet to be cleared up are indicated in a document which has been published. I should like to know from the Under-Secretary whether the negotiations, the expenses of which we are asked to meet, are well in hand, and whether, when these preliminaries have been completed, we shall then start right away on a large-scale withdrawal of foreign volunteers from both sides in Spain. In short, are we coming nearer to giving real effect to the work of the Non-Intervention Committee? So far non-intervention has failed. I could give quotations on that point from right hon. Gentlemen opposite and on this side of the House, and I know what the country at large thinks. The country is amazed to find that we have permitted this sham of non-intervention to be carried on for so long while the number of foreign troops in Spain has been increasing every day.

Sir H. Croft: Hear, hear.

Mr. Grenfell: Yes, but the hon. and gallant Member would not agree with my point of view, because he thinks the great preponderance of foreign troops is on one side. The foreign troops are in Spain as the agents and the armed emissaries of the Government which sent them there.

The Chairman: This is exactly the sort of thing which cannot be discussed.

Mr. Grenfell: Is there any use in discussing further expenditure upon the Non-Intervention Committee unless effect is given to the withdrawal of volunteers? We are now discussing the preliminary steps before the withdrawal of volunteers. I still try to be an optimist, and I look forward to this country and all the other countries of Europe playing a really honourable part in this tragic story of Spain. One is driven almost to despair by the delay. Everybody complains of the delay in giving effect to the terms already agreed upon. One of the terms agreed upon, verbally and officially, was the withdrawal of foreign troops. When that has been done, the way will be open for further steps forward. I have no authority for the statement that I am about to make, but if we were assured of the withdrawal of foreign volunteers and that it will be effected in a short, measurable space of time, I should look forward to real negotiations between the


Spanish Government and everybody else in Spain with a view to seeing whether by mediation something could be done to shorten the conflict. That all depends upon the drive behind the movement for the withdrawal of foreign troops. Unless we have that assurance, I should say that the bulk of the provision for the expenditure of public money is wasted. The Non-Intervention Committee might as well pack up unless something is done to give effect to the withdrawal of foreign troops.
Something was said by the Under-Secretary about China. He said that there were certain British refugees who had been caught in the conflict in China from the outbreak of hostilities. When was the outbreak of hostilities? No official date has been fixed. These people lost their homes, their resources, and narrowly escaped with their lives in a struggle in which they had no part. They were driven from their homes and certain expense has been incurred by our Government in removing them to places of safety. They were asked if they could provide the money to pay for their passage, and when it was found that they had no means, we are told, an undertaking was asked from them that they would repay the cost of their removal. That is about the shabbiest thing that I have ever heard of. Why should not the Japanese Government be asked to pay the cost? They are the aggressors. They invaded another country and our people were the victims of their aggression. Why should not the country responsible for their sorry plight be made to foot the bill? Nobody objects to these people being removed to places of safety, but to put the ultimate responsibility of the cost of their removal on the taxpayers of this country is to relinquish our rightful claim against the country who are responsible.
With regard to the £5,000 compensation to be paid to the former British Ambassador in China, we all wish to compliment him upon his escape. He is a man of whom nothing but good is known; a brave man who was the victim of conditions for which he was not in the least responsible. Has the Government insisted that Japan should pay in this case? This man was injured as a result of action by a foreign Government, and that Government should be made responsible for the

injury done to him, and should foot the bill.
The Under-Secretary said that the provision for the Assyrians was a very difficult problem, for which they had been seeking a solution for some years. He said that a scheme which at one time seemed to be promising had to be abandoned and that another scheme of location as a home for these people had to be found. We are told that it is a tripartite scheme, towards the cost of which Iraq is to make a contribution, Britain another contribution and the League of Nations a smaller contribution of, I think, 15 per cent. The Under-Secretary pointed out that the money was to be spent in providing conditions of existence for an agricultural population and helping them in regard to cultivation. No one objects to this Vote, which will get easy consent. Certainly, no objection will come from these benches.
The Under-Secretary also referred to a certain saving. It is good to hear of a saving, but a saving in the case of the League of Nations rather tickled me. He spoke about saving on a piece of sculpture for the League of Nations building. What is an appropriate piece of sculpture for the League of Nations? I should like to see more money and more confidence voted to the League, instead of the Government coming before the House with a miserable allowance for this great institution, which is the cheapest institution of its kind the world has ever known, and promises to give more than 100-fold value for any expenditure incurred on it. I should like to have a living effigy of the League doing its full work, responding to the world-wide demand for guaranteed peace and ensuring contentment and security for peoples everywhere. I have not been able to make the kind of speech I should have liked to make. I should have liked to cover the whole ground of the failure of non-intervention in Spain, but I have to be content by moving a reduction of the Vote, and with the speech that I have made.

5.7 p.m.

Sir Edward Grigg: There is only one point that I wish to raise, and I think I can do so without in any way transgressing the rules of order or incurring the displeasure of the Chair. Before raising the point, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of


State on the efficiency and lucidity with which he discharged his task, and to say that his many friends on the benches behind the Government will watch his career in his new post with great good will and great confidence. The point I wish to raise refers to the Vote for a grant to His Majesty's late Ambassador in China. I am not going to question the propriety of that grant in any way. Our Ambassador in China was and is a most distinguished officer. He was motoring along a public road on his lawful vocation when he became a victim of what we regard as an inexcusable and indefensible attack. We are glad to know that he is recovering satisfactorily from the wounds he received.
While not questioning the propriety of the Vote, I should like to ask for information. Are we in this grant creating a new precedent, or are there precedents for grants of this character? If we are creating a new precedent, is it to be of general application? I have known many instances of less distinguished but equally public-spirited officers who have been wounded and even killed in the service of His Majesty in different parts of the British Empire, and I think we should all like to think that officers who suffer in the discharge of their duties, through no fault of their own, are indemnified, or their relatives are indemnified, in the same way as this very distinguished member of the Diplomatic Service.
The case is different where compensation is demanded from a foreign Government. I do not press that point in that case, because there may be difficulties. I remember that in Egypt a case of this kind, which led to the almost immediate death of a very distinguished officer, was made a case of compensation from another Government. While not pressing that point in the present case, I think we ought to know whether this is a new precedent, or, if there are precedents for it, what the precedents are, and whether the same kind of consideration will be given to all officers in the public service throughout the British Empire or serving at the courts of other countries. I raise the point with the feeling that all officers of His Majesty should receive the same consideration, according to their rank. We should all like to know that they will in future receive that consideration, if this is a new precedent.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I should like to add my word of welcome to the new Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs and to ask him a question in connection with item ZZ—the evacuation of refugees from Spain. I welcome this grant by the British Government towards humanitarian work in Spain. A remarkable fact about the Spanish war is the amount of humanitarian work that has been done not only by this country but by democratic countries all over the world. Many organisations have raised money for various forms of relief. It is not an exaggeration to say that the amount of money collected in England for Spanish relief runs into a sum which would make this grant by the British Government look very small. I do not complain on that account, because one realises that a Government necessarily cannot give as generously as individuals. Certainly, a great deal of relief work has been done through these organisations. Organisations have also done much work in evacuating Spaniards from Madrid. I think the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) misunderstood the position, if I understood him aright, in thinking that money had been used for evacuating foreigners in the interests of foreign Governments. I think I am right in saying that the money was almost exclusively used for evacuating Spaniards.

Mr. Grenfell: Many of those Spaniards were housed in the Embassies of foreign countries in Madrid.

Mr. Roberts: The figure of £4,000 relates to exactly the same number as-were evacuated from Madrid at a much cheaper rate by a voluntary organisation. That did not, however, include evacuation from Valencia by ship. The question that I particularly wanted to ask was this: The Under-Secretary mentioned that the Governments of various countries were making payments in regard to the cost of this evacuation, and that those would come in as Appropriations-in-Aid. I understand that in addition to the Governments making such grants, the individuals concerned paid in some cases very considerable sums before it was decided to make use of these facilities. Is it possible to give a figure of how much was contributed by the Spaniards concerned and how much the figure actually was? Passing on to item ZZ, I


would query, as did the hon. Member for Gower, the word "volunteers" which still appears in the heading, and which has been used for too long. It is time we dropped this expression. The majority of Italians and Germans in Spain are in no sense volunteers, although there are volunteers on the Government side. The real problem is not the withdrawal of volunteers but the withdrawal of troops in Spain.
If we are asked for the first time to make a contribution towards this policy, which is a new policy, perhaps it is right for me to say that I have been looking through some of the records on this matter. I find that the Italians first agreed to withdrawal a little over a year ago, and that they have been agreeing to it ever since, as far as I can make out. It has not cost us anything, but while they have been agreeing to it the problem has been growing larger by the arrival of more troops. May we be assured that in granting this money we are not subscribing to any new policy of the Government for the withdrawal of so-called volunteers? I have recognised in the answers which have been given during the last few days that there has not been any great anxiety to enlighten the questioners in regard to the situation which now exists. This may be a suitable time for the Government to give us a statement of their policy in regard to so-called volunteers. Is it possible to give us any indication in the reply which will be made whether the programme and the scheme laid down in the British plan of July, and re-asserted and agreed to by all concerned on 4th November, are the basis of what is being considered at the present time?
We have not yet been told precisely what formula is being used—I think that is the Prime Minister's own word—and which has been agreed to by the Italians. We want to know whether that formula is strictly limited to the way in which volunteers should be withdrawn or whether it is a new form of the British plan of July and 4th November. These questions as to the way in which withdrawal is to be carried out are of paramount importance. Perhaps I might quote the military correspondent of the "Times" of 26th February. I would draw attention to an important point concerning the relative importance of the different types of troops who may be with-

drawn and the time at which they should be withdrawn. I will quote the precise words:
The indications are that the number of foreign technicians as well as of ordinary troops, is much higher on the Nationalist side than on the Government side."—

The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is going too far. The item that we are discussing is a contribution to preliminary expenses to be met out of an advance made by the International Council for Non-Intervention. It is merely His Majesty's Government share of those preliminary expenses, and the money will be spent by quite a different body. It would not be in order for us to discuss any of the proceedings of the International Council for Non-Intervention.

5.22 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: This is altogether a new subject, which has never appeared before in the Estimates, and the amount asked for is a Token Vote under that subhead. Are we not entitled to discuss the advisability or not of making any appropriation whatever under such a sub-head? If we are not, we shall be in the position of being unable to discuss the purpose of this expenditure at any period of time. This is a new subject now being introduced, and I suggest that it is for this Committee to say whether or not we should make a contribution to the International Council for Non-Intervention for the purposes stated here, which relate to the withdrawing of volunteers from Spain. It is essential that we should know on what the money is to be spent by the International Council before we grant the Vote, and we should be able to give our views as to whether we think it is wise to spend money for this purpose. We cannot say that we are to give it to the International Council for Non-Intervention to go out and have dinner with it, or to do anything they like. The money is for some special purpose, and I suggest that it is for this Committee to discuss that purpose, this being a new subject.

The Chairman: A great deal of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said is true in theory, but when you come to apply it in practice to this Vote one or two things arise which he overlooked. In the first place, this is a contribution to particular preliminary expenses for certain purposes which cannot be gone


into. We are proposing to put this money into the hands of another body to make use of, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, and it is the time to consider whether any Vote should be given at all, but we certainly cannot go on discussing the policy or policies of the International Council.

Sir S. Cripps: You say that this is a contribution for certain purposes; are we not entitled to discuss those certain purposes? When this Committee is asked to make a contribution for certain purposes, are we debarred from discussing those certain purposes? I understand your Ruling to be that although this money is for certain purposes we may not discuss those certain purposes.

The Chairman: The hon. Member does not correctly state what I said. I did not say that the Committee cannot discuss the purposes for which the money is required. The contribution is for certain preliminary expenses, pending the settlement of certain financial arrangements. What those preliminary expenses are, so far as information can be given, is a perfectly legitimate subject to inquire about.

Sir S. Cripps: I am anxious that this extremely important question should not pass by unnoticed. This money is to be a contribution towards particular preliminary expenses in connection with the withdrawal of volunteers from Spain under an arrangement by the International Council. Let me put the matter in this way to you: Suppose there to be in existence a pact which the International Council may or may not implement, and that the question is whether we should initiate the implementing of that pact by providing certain money for preliminary expenses. If I then desired to say that I opposed the expenditure of this £800 because I believed that the plan proposed was thoroughly bad and vicious and that we ought not to take any part in it, or that some other Member wished to say: "I believe we ought to spend £800 in this way, because this is a good and useful plan," surely the Committee would have to judge those expenses in the light of the object to which it was preliminary? The word "preliminary" has no context unless we know something about that to which it is preliminary, and has no meaning unless it relates to an expectation of something to

be done thereafter. When being asked to grant supply of a preliminary nature we must be entitled to discuss that to which it is preliminary, and to say whether it is wise to spend the money in view of whatever is likely to eventuate.

The Chairman: I prefer to give my Ruling on the meaning of the words on the Paper rather than upon a hypothetical case supposed and put up by the hon. and learned Member. It is legitimate to discuss and to express views upon the question whether any contribution should be made towards preliminary expenses pending the settlement of certain arrangements, and on account of an advance made by the International Council. I have not moved from what I said, which is that the proceedings of the International Council for Non-Intervention in Spain are not a matter for debate in detail upon this particular Vote.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Cocks: Here is a Council which has been sitting for nearly 18 months to do work of great importance, as the Under-Secretary of State has said, and all it can do at the end of 18 months is to recommend an expenditure of £800. Can we not therefore ask why it has not made better progress and why—

The Chairman: I have given my Ruling upon the main point, and I cannot allow hon. Members practically to make speeches on matters they want to talk about in the form of questions on points of Order based upon hypothetical questions. It will be better for the Debate to continue, and it must be left in the ordinary way to the occupant of the Chair to intervene if he finds it necessary to do so.

Mr. Cocks: I would point out with great respect that I was not trying to make a speech under cover of a point of Order. I wanted to know whether we were not entitled to ask certain questions.

The Chairman: When the hon. Member speaks later, he can try to state his views.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I will do my best to keep within your Ruling. It is not my intention to discuss the whole question of non-intervention but the narrow question of the withdrawal of so-called volunteers. It seems to me essential that we should be able to form an opinion whether this money should or should not be voted.


The question at issue is, What is the plan to be for which this £800 is part of the preliminary expenses? If it is a plan of a certain type we should support it, and if it is a plan of a different type we should be compelled to oppose it.
If I am in order, I should like to say that in any withdrawal of volunteers we regard the position of the technicians as of vital importance, and I should like to ask the Under-Secretary how the plan for which we are voting this money is likely to affect the position of technicians who may be advising in Spain at the present time. We want the plan for the withdrawal of troops and technicians to be a fair one, but, as regards the technicians, I foresee another grave injustice to one side in the Spanish conflict. My authority for that is the correspondent of the "Times," who has pointed out that there is a larger number of troops on the side of the insurgents, and that there is also an overwhelming majority of technicians on that side, and any withdrawal which does not take account of these facts will do very grave injustice to the Spanish Government. I do not want to dwell further on that point, but, if it be possible for the Government to give us any indication as to their attitude, as to what communication has been made to the Governments included in the Non-Intervention Agreement, and as to the specific proposal that is before them, we shall be very grateful.
These schemes for withdrawal have been part of a wider scheme. It is no use withdrawing troops from Spain if the frontiers are not effectively controlled so that the troops do not immediately return; but that is a totally different thing from the control of certain frontiers which is being pressed on the British Government at the present time. That is not a part of the original British plan of last July, which specifically laid it down that such control should only come into force in connection with, and—I think these were the precise words—should shortly precede, the commencement of the withdrawal. We consider that if, as the result of a general promise which has been given again and again in the last year, control were imposed upon the Franco-Spanish frontier, that would inflict the gravest injustice on one side in Spain.

The Chairman: Although on some matters which are a little outside the

actual subject of the Debate, if an hon. Member asks a question briefly and the Minister is prepared to reply to it, I do not raise any objection; but that does not mean that I can allow the matter to be debated. Perhaps my language has not been very clear, but what I wanted to point out was that in my view the action of the International Committee on Non-Intervention in Spain is too remote for debate on this question of a contribution of £800 to a total of £5,000 for preliminary expenses.

Mr. Grenfell: If the action of the Non-Intervention Committee is too remote, are not the circumstances with which that Committee are faced, and which are to be met first of all by preliminary action of this kind, worthy and able to be debated in this Chamber to-day?

The Chairman: According to what the hon. Gentleman puts to me, he is apparently arguing that we can now debate the whole question of policy in regard to any arrangement or proposal for the withdrawal of volunteers. That, certainly, I must rule to be quite out of order.

Mr. Roberts: I was rather encouraged by your earlier Ruling in connection with the discussion of the question whether there should be any negotiations or not, and it is only from a consideration of these admittedly rather more general points that we can come to any conclusion as to whether there should be any negotiations for the withdrawal of volunteers. I will not tresspass much further, but I should like, if I may, to put this quite simple question to the Government: Are the present proposals for the withdrawal of volunteers in any way connected with the immediate closing of the French frontier? I trust that that is not the case, because, to give only one reason, it would seem to me to inflict a grave injustice on one side in Spain. I only want to put one other point. I believe that the Non-Intervention Committee is in some of its aspects a registered company, as it is called Non-Intervention, Limited. The name certainly lends itself to misunderstanding, or perhaps to understanding, and it was registered, I think, on a day in April, though not, I believe, the 1st. I would like to ask where the finances of Non-Intervention, Limited, stand. We are contributing a considerable sum under this Vote, and I should like to know what other Governments have paid their


dues, whether all the contributions have been paid, and, if not, who has not paid.
Finally, I trust that, if the Committee approves of this Vote of £800 for the withdrawal of troops in Spain, we shall not find that we are in fact paying for the withdrawal of Italian troops—that is to say, I trust that any financial arrangements that may be made will be fair, and will provide that those countries which have nationals in Spain shall pay a substantial part of the cost of the withdrawal. I see no reason why we should pay for the repatriation of troops who have gone there contrary to the undertaking given by their Governments.

5.39 p.m.

Sir H. Croft: I do not intend to detain the Committee for very long, and I shall endeavour to keep within the limits that were observed by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. R. Grenfell). I will not refer at length to the various items that we are discussing, but I should like to congratulate the Minister on the fact that we have saved a little money on the memorial tablet or tombstone at the Palace of Geneva, and I rejoice to think that we are at last doing something for the Assyrians, who were such very loyal friends of ours for many years, especially in the Great War. I should also like, and I am sure every Member of the Committee will agree with me, to congratulate the Government on the services of our forces, naval and mercantile marine, to both sides in assisting so many thousands of people to escape from the suffering which they encountered in the Spanish Civil War. I think that that part of the Minister's speech was very welcome to all in the Committee.
I should not be intervening in this Debate but for the speeches that one hears on the other side. I think it would be much better if we confined our energies to Britain and the British Empire. Hon. Members opposite will admit that for three months after the campaign was first raised on those benches I kept silent, but it seems to me that we ought to be absolutely detached and to represent both sides. In attempting to do so I hope I have not given offence to anyone above the Gangway. Hon. Members opposite certainly have not given any offence to me in this Chamber, though they have done so by what they have said to foreign audiences in Spain.
We are now considering a small additional expenditure in view of consultations which are about to take place for bringing about the withdrawal of foreign fighting men from Spain. It would be very easy to put forward arguments to rebut those which have been used, but I will content myself with stating the broad principle that I personally should not wish to support this Vote unless I was convinced that the policy was likely to be a practical policy, and that it is going to be attempted all round. It would ill become us to criticise the motives of the Government in attempting to carry out the policy of non-intervention, which came to us from France and which the Government have done their utmost to interpret fairly in the spirit and in the letter.
The object of this Vote is to bring about machinery for reducing the number of foreign fighting men on both sides, but if this policy is to succeed, as we all want it to succeed, it would appear to be essential that in the first place we should use every diplomatic effort that we can with all sides to prevent any more men from going into Spain. We should use our influence in that direction especially with those with whom we have remained on such good terms during all these difficult times, in order that they may realise that His Majesty's Government are most anxious that no further fighting men on any side should go over the borders into Spain. The hon. Member for Gower pointed to the slight saving that had been effected by taking off control at the Portuguese frontier, but I think he forgot to mention that there is a larger and more important frontier in Spain, namely, the Pyrenees. That frontier is far more important, because a far greater stream of men has been going over it. That fact is well known; it was actually debated in the French Chamber last week.
I understand, from what the hon. Member for Gower said, that he thinks it is correct that, while observers are being removed, countries which are absolutely bound to non-intervention should ignore those restrictions which we thought they would put on themselves. Are we ever going to achieve anything by this policy with which the Estimate we are voting to-day is concerned unless we all, as far as we can, try to carry out the spirit of non-intervention? Hon. Members deplore the fact that there have


been Italian troops fighting in Spain. If we could all agree in this House that every foreigner in Spain, including those who have been invited to go by hon. Gentlemen sitting on the benches above the Gangway, should be withdrawn at once, it would be much easier to arrive at a world understanding. It is no good emptying one side of the syphon if the water is pouring in at the other. You will not get this machinery into operation unless it is clearly understood that while we are bringing pressure to bear on certain countries to agree to the withdrawal of volunteers, other countries are not pouring in thousands more. I have tried to avoid using names of countries, because I am sure that if one thing has shone out in this business it is that the Government of this country and well-affected citizens have tried to play the game. Now is the time, if there is going to be a more peaceful attitude in the world, for us to do everything in our power to follow a similar course and make the same sacrifices as we have done, and see that we carry out the literal interpretation of non-intervention that we understood when France pointed the way to us.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), except to say that his references to the policy of non-intervention should not cause us to forget that, if it had not been for those with whom he is associated, in sentiment at any rate, there would never have been any need for a policy of nonintervention. I would like to turn to the question of China, and to ask the Under-Secretary whether the Vote which has reference to evacuation and maintenance of British refugees in China has reference to refugees from Nanking as well as Shanghai and Hankow. The position of British civilians in China is becoming even more desperate as the tide of invasion advances in that unhappy country. In the Middle Ages it was considered always that war between two countries involved war against all the civilians in those countries, but more recently the practice has been accepted—by all international lawyers, at any rate; and I believe, by the militarists of all countries—that war should not be waged against civilians. Unfortunately, we seem to be reverting to the barbarism of the past,

and to-day we witness the terrible distress that has come to those who have no part or lot in war. Therefore, I welcome any expenditure which will be used to aid the unfortunate civilians who have become subject to the horrors of war. I particularly mention Nanking because of the terrible events which have taken place in that city. In the "Daily Telegraph" of 28th January, we have, on the authority of the special correspondent of that paper, a report to this effect:
Reports and letters sent by professors at the University of Nanking and by American missionaries at the Japanese Embassy and to the missionary headquarters … describe wholesale executions, rape and looting. One missionary estimates the number of Chinese slaughtered at Nanking as 20,000 while thousands of women, including young girls, have, it is stated, been outraged. … Repeated complaints are made that the Japanese authorities have done nothing to curb their troops. Unspeakable crimes, it is declared, have been committed in full view of the Japanese Embassy staff.
That account has been corroborated, to some extent, by a report in the "Manchester Guardian," dated 14th February, to this effect:
It is becoming possible … to reckon up some of the damage done in property and lives. Foreigners estimate the number of deaths at about 10,000. Most of these were killed in cold blood and many of them were civilians shot without pretext. Men who admitted to having served with the Chinese Army on promise of no worse punishment than forced labour, were taken away in batches and killed. Foreigners heard the promise made and interviewed men who had escaped from the firing squads, or crawled away with bayonet wounds after having been left for dead. It is almost impossible to estimate the numbers of women raped, but it can hardly have been less than 8,000, judging from the cases actually proved.
I would like to ask the Minister whether, in connection with the amount of £15,000 which is provided in this particular Vote for the evacuation of British refugees from China, he is satisfied that the whole of our fellow-citizens who were in China at the commencement of these hostilities have now been evacuated from the danger zones, and whether the steps which have been taken, in respect of which this expenditure has been incurred, cover British citizens in Nanking as well as Shanghai and Hankow.
I would like to draw attention to another item concerning the relief of distress in Spain. I think the Committee will have in mind the statement of the ex-Foreign Secretary about two weeks


ago that certain initiative had been taken by His Majesty's Government with regard to the position of civilians as a result of air bombardment. The House was told this afternoon that His Majesty's Government was still in consultation with the French Government on this particular question, but, having regard to the fact that a good deal of the distress to which this Vote refers is directly the result of air bombardment, whether from one side or the other in the Spanish civil war, I think it is pertinent to ask the Under-Secretary to give a little more information with regard to possible future developments in this connection. Only last week, in the "Times," it was reported that Barcelona had been subject to 10 air attacks within a space of 36 hours. It does not require much imagination to appreciate the distress that must have been occasioned, and that this problem which has given the Government so much concern can only be accentuated the longer this policy of air bombardment continues. Is it not possible for other countries besides the British and French to be associated with representations in connection with air bombardment? I hesitate to ask that the assistance of the Non-Intervention Committee should be sought in this connection because, as my hon. Friend said a few minutes ago, they have been sitting for 18 months on another aspect of the civil war, and if we are to wait another 18 months the position will be infinitely worse than it is to-day.
I would also remind the Committee that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction, not only in this country, but in others, over the tardiness of the Non-Intervention Committee in arranging for the implementing of the British scheme for the withdrawal of volunteers from both sides. We on this side support the proposal to reduce the Vote, because we desire that something should be done to bring about the withdrawal of the large numbers of Italian troops who are at present serving on the side of General Franco. I hope the Minister will be able to give some indication later that, while he cannot commit the Non-Intervention Committee itself, he will, at any rate, attempt to reassure the Committee that there is every probability that in the very near future it will be possible to implement the British scheme by establishing

the machinery which will be essential if that policy is to be carried out, and that we may be reassured that, in the very near future, these foreign volunteers will be taken away from Spanish territories.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Mander: There are one or two questions I would like to put to the Under-Secretary. First, in reference to item RR, can he give us some information as to these observers, and particularly those who are to watch on the Spanish-Portuguese frontier? They have been called off their work for a considerable time, and one would like to know where they are. Are they having a good time in Lisbon, or are they in this country? How many are there, and are they in such a position that they can be called back to duty at short notice? I would like to ask the same questions about those observers on the Pyrenees frontier. We are entitled to information respecting these very important persons who are holding themselves in readiness if called upon. I would also like to ask some questions about item UU, which relates to His Majesty's Ambassador in China. I find myself in full agreement with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) just now. I agree that the Ambassador is fully entitled to be treated in this way. We all deeply regret the entirely unjustifiable outrage that was perpetrated in his case. We hope that he will be fully restored to excellent health, but we are entitled to ask whether there is a precedent for this? Is it something which is usually done, and is it only done in the case of Ambassadors? As was said by the hon. Member, there are a large number of people, some important and some unimportant, who are wounded or lose their lives performing their duty in the same sort of way as a very distinguished Ambassador, and they are just as much entitled to recognition and compensation as the Ambassador.
I remember well that when the Government made their protest to the Japanese Government about this outrage they took particular care not to base it on the fact that the person who had been shot down was an Ambassador, but took the line that he was a British subject. They approached it on broad, general lines, and quite rightly. Therefore, let us so approach the question of compensa-


tion, and not allow anyone to say that this is a class affair and that compensation is given only because the individual concerned occupies a very important position. We are also entitled to know whether the Japanese Government are to be pressed to repay this sum to the British Government. I should have thought that that was the very least they could be expected to do. I hope that we shall be told whether application has been made or whether it will be made for repayment in this and similar cases. Before passing from this aspect of it, I would make, possibly from some points of view the controversial comment, that the shooting down of a British Ambassador and other similar acts show the pitiable and humiliating position in which this country is placed in the Far East through the complete failure of the foreign policy of the British Government in that part of the world.
I would put one or two further questions to the Under-Secretary following upon those that were put by my hon. Friend, who raised the question as to what steps were to be taken to see that troops who come out of Spain do not return. That is a very important matter and I hope to get some information about it. It is not only that we do not want the troops to return, but it is very important that there should not be a transfer of naval vessels. If that took place the scheme upon which we are now entering under this new service would be quite futile, and we ought not to vote money even for the beginning of it. Is it proposed to include measures which will prevent the arrival of aircraft and pilots? That is an absolutely vital part of it, and if that is not going to be part of the general scheme which the Government have in mind, we ought not to support the expenditure which is suggested here. The hon. Member made some reference to the fact that a doctor was to be employed. I take it that he meant that at certain places he was going to recommend that buildings should be set up for embarkation purposes, and perhaps we could have a little more information on that subject.
Lastly, I turn to the question of the Assyrians. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) said that he was very glad that something was being done at last for the Assyrians. That is the exact opposite

of the truth. Very little is being done for the Assyrians. The last time the matter came before this House—and I remember taking part in the Debate—the Government were able to say that there was a scheme in existence which would enable them to do something for all the Assyrians, but, unfortunately, as my hon. Friend has said, that scheme broke down owing to political difficulties in Syria. The only persons who are to be helped at all are about 9,000 Assyrians who are to be settled in this particular area. But what about the 30,000 who are—

The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): I am afraid that this Estimate is confined to the 9,000.

Mr. Mander: May I ask the Under-Secretary whether it really is to be limited to 9,000, or whether this is simply the beginning of a scheme which will bring into it large numbers who are in great peril on the other side of the frontier? We should feel very much more satisfied if we knew that it was only the beginning of a much bigger scheme to deal with all the Assyrians. There is no doubt that, although we have no legal liability in respect of these unfortunate people, we have a very big moral liability. The Mandate for Iraq was abandoned because we recommended that it would be safe to leave them there. We were quite wrong in that assumption and in making that recommendation, because not long afterwards there was a massacre. We want to do something—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot go into the general policy of dealing with the Assyrians on this Vote. He can only deal with the reason for the increase of £4,000.

Mr. Mander: I would like to put this point to the Under-Secretary. The original scheme to which he referred in his speech was one in which we promised in 1936 a contribution of £250,000, Iraq the same sum, France £380,000 and the League of Nations £86,000. That came to an end, as we know, but at that time there was also a further sum of £180,000 to be found, of which £130,000 was provided, I think, by way of loans, and there was a sum of £50,000 from voluntary contributions to a fund started by the Archbishop of Canterbury. What has become of that fund? Has it ever been started? What is there in it at the present time?

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot allow the Minister to answer that question on this Vote.

Mr. Mander: I want to find out from the Under-Secretary whether the fund of the Archbishop of Canterbury is involved in any way in this scheme, as it certainly was involved in the previous scheme brought forward two years ago. I do not know, and none of us knows, and I am asking for information. It may well be that it is not involved, or, on the other hand, it may affect the situation in some way. If this money is available, is there any need for granting this sum? I cannot discuss the wider aspect of this matter, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance on the question of the Assyrians by holding out the hope that he is not only dealing with the 9,000 in the beginning he is now making, but that he intends to deal with them all.
In the Debate which took place two years ago it was pointed out by the then Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Viscount Cranborne), that the only scheme that was really any good from both the political security and economic point of view was the Ghab scheme, and that is the one which has been abandoned. The view was expressed at that time that the Khabur scheme was not nearly so safe because it was much too near the Turkish frontier. That was the reason why those 9,000 were not to be left permanently in that place, but they were going to be brought to Ghab. I should like to know what is now the position? If it was unsafe then, surely it is still unsafe. We are not only not helping a considerable number of Assyrians, but we are leaving these 9,000 with whom we are now dealing, in a position of considerable insecurity, and I hope that we may have some reassurance upon that point.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I should like to join with those hon. Members who have expressed their good wishes to the Under-Secretary in the very arduous task that he has undertaken, and their congratulations to him upon the admirable way in which he introduced the Supplementary Estimates to the Committee. I ask the Committee to turn from the rather more controversial subjects which have occupied us during part of this afternoon to a Vote

which, I think, commands the sympathy of the whole Committee, namely, the Vote for distress in Spain, and with it the allied Vote for the evacuation of refugees. These two Votes may be taken as part only of a wider policy which, I hope, will be increasingly pursued by the Government—the policy of the good neighbour. We have had to think a great deal about non-intervention and I hope that nonintervention may yet succeed, but at the best it is just confining the conflagration within a limited area and preventing further material for the conflagration reaching the area, but all the while there is intense human suffering going on, and it is the duty of the good neighbour to help those who are suffering. I am grateful for the fact that, comparatively small as is the help that has yet been given. His Majesty's Government have seen their way to give a lead in this respect. I hope that they will be able to go still further.
The country as a whole has not yet realised the extent of the suffering among the refugees in Spain. There can be little doubt that there are at present something like a million refugees who have had to leave their homes on account of the civil war, and they are to be found on both sides, and the suffering is acute, particularly among the children. There must be more than 250,000 young children among those refugees. I have in my hand a survey that was made a week or two ago by an experienced worker who has been in Catalonia working in a non-political relief organisation since the beginning of the war, and he has made a survey of the nine regions of Catalonia, showing that there are 147,000 refugees in that part of Spain alone. He states that one-third of these are children under seven, and he has told me that he believes that two-thirds of the refugees are children under 15. Workers who have been engaged in the task of feeding some of these refugees give piteous accounts of the extent and acuteness of the suffering, of children crying for bread and unable to get it, of mothers in despair because they are unable to feed their young children, and, greatest of all, of the shortage of milk everywhere. Even where there are measures for supplying food only children under three are able to get milk.
This does not apply to Catalonia alone. In other districts the need is very great, especially in Almeria. At the beginning of February in the hospital at Almeria


babies who were cut down to half a ration of milk had to have even that amount diminished. It is not only in Republican Spain that the need is felt. It is true that in the Northern Nationalist Spain there are more abundant food supplies, but there is a lack of organisation and there is acute need in the region around Oviedo and in the neighbourhood of Bilbao. I have here a letter from an American relief worker in Nationalist Spain. He says:
We found Oviedo children scattered in temporary and permanent orphanages for 70 miles around, others still huddle amid the ruins. One of our experiences that most tugged at our heart-strings was that of giving out 40 blankets to 652 children. Several of the little ones who did not get blankets walked up to them and felt them. One child patted the blankets and then walked outside into the night cold.
Help is needed not only in Nationalist Spain but in Republican Spain in the supply of food, and particularly in the supply of milk for young children. I am grateful for the answer which was given by the Under-Secretary of State this week, that His Majesty's Government have given a promise of assistance to the International Commission, under the chairmanship of Judge Hansson, the distinguished President of the Nansen Office in Geneva, now engaged on plans which may shortly be carried out, if funds are forthcoming, to supply one hot meal per day to refugee children in Spain on both sides, wherever it is needed. The commission hope, if sufficient funds are forthcoming—and funds have already been promised by different Governments—to supply at least 80,000 children with a hot meal a day for 100 days.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now discussing something which will come under the new Estimates for next year.

Mr. Harvey: I am taking the sum mentioned in this Vote to-day as part of a general policy of relief, and I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to indicate that he will do his best, as he has been doing, to encourage other Governments to assist in this great work, and that His Majesty's Government will itself take a generous part in it. The work that has already been done under the Estimate cannot be judged by figures. It means bringing hope and life to many who are suffering. It will help not only the children, but their mothers and their

friends. It will bring good will into homes where there is darkness at present, and hope into hearts where there is now nothing but hate. The Committee, I am sure, will wish the Government to go on in this task of the good Samaritan.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Cocks: I desire to join other hon. Members in congratulating the Under-Secretary on his appointment.

Miss Wilkinson: Why?

Mr. Cocks: Because I sat with him for two years on an important committee and I formed a high opinion of his ability. I wish him, personally, success, although I disagree entirely with the policy he has to pursue. I want sincerely, Captain Bourne, to try and keep in order. I do not wish to use any ingenuity I may have to circumvent any Ruling you have given. I shall try to follow the example of the clergyman who, being a moderate man, all his life tried to walk along the narrow path which divides right from wrong. In my view what I am going to say is entirely in order and this is the appropriate time to say it. If you rule otherwise I shall promptly sit down, because the whole of my speech is directed to one point and if I am ruled out of order on one point I am ruled out of order on the whole of my speech. Here we have a sum of £800 put down for the first time in connection with the expenses for the withdrawal of volunteers from Spain. This work, as the Under-Secretary said, is of the very greatest importance. I want to ask the Government why is it, seeing that this Committee have been sitting for 18 months in order to carry out this work, that it is now only able to recommend an expenditure of so small a sum as £800 for the withdrawal of such volunteers from Spain as can be withdrawn?
I want the Government to explain why the Committee has not been able to make more rapid progress with this work; why it has not been able to produce more successful results? I want the Government to tell us what are the obstacles in the way and how the Committee are trying to overcome them. I also want to know the present position of the Committee and when they expect to be able to make a start with the evacuation of volunteers. The Committee of Non-Intervention was set up some time ago in order to bring


about the evacuation of volunteers from Spain and to prevent any more foreign nationals going into Spain to fight. I do not propose to deal with the prolonged proceedings of the Committee, but I should like to start my survey of its work from about a year ago. Last March, after the battle of Guadalajara, Signor Grandi, the Italian representative, went to the Non-Intervention Committee and stated that not a single Italian soldier would be withdrawn until victory was won. France threatened strong action, and in this House on 11th April the Noble Lord who was then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that if it was not found possible to make progress with the evacuation of volunteers in the near future a new situation would be created.
The result was that the subject of the withdrawal of volunteers was again placed on the agenda of the Non-Intervention Committee, and on 19th April a control scheme was put into operation. On the 26th of May the Committee met and considered a plan for the withdrawal of volunteers submitted by the technical subcommittee, and the Non-Intervention Committee decided to refer the plan to the various Governments concerned for their consideration and acceptance. Five days later there occurred the incident of the "Deutschland," and Germany and Italy withdrew from the Non-Intervention Committee and also from the control scheme. Next month, on 12th June, a new control scheme was set up, Germany and Italy returned to the Non-Intervention Committee—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think my predecessor ruled that the actions of the Non-Intervention Committee could not be discussed on this Vote.

Mr. Cocks: He made some observation of that kind, but when I asked him whether he would give a definite ruling that we were not to discuss the work of the Non-Intervention Committee he said that he would not give a ruling then but that he must wait and listen to the speech of the Under-Secretary before he could give a ruling.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have now had the advantage of listening to the speech and I rule that we cannot go back so far in history.

Mr. Cocks: Then I shall not be in order in referring to the working of the Non-Intervention Committee in July, August and September?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot raise those questions.

Sir S. Cripps: Is it not permissible, when we are considering whether we shall vote money to the Non-Intervention Committee, to consider what they have done in the past? The only way we can judge whether the Non-Intervention Committee is likely to do anything satisfactory is by examining what they have done in the past. Surely it is legitimate to say that because in the past they have not done this and that this Committee ought not to give them any further money?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Member will know that on a Supplementary Estimate we cannot go into questions of main policy. This is a small grant for a new service and for a special purpose and we cannot discuss main lines of policy.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not suggesting that we should discuss main lines of policy but that we should go back to the acts of the Non-Intervention Committee in order to judge whether we now consider them a sufficiently responsible and efficient body to carry out further work with regard to the evacuation of volunteers now being initiated under this Vote.

The Deputy-Chairman: If that argument was good it would enable the whole actions of the Non-Intervention Committee to be discussed, and that is exactly what does not arise on this Vote.

Mr. Cocks: I have to bow to your Ruling, and I am going to carry out my threat and sit down and reserve my remarks for a future occasion. I will conclude by saying that there must have been a good deal of obstruction to the progress of the Non-Intervention Committee; otherwise a sum of more than £800 would have been spent on evacuating volunteers. I suggest to the Government that if they want to make more progress they will have to take stronger action to induce the German and Italian Governments to agree to the evacuation of volunteers. Can the Under-Secretary of State tell us the present position of the Committee?


When will the Committee meet again, and is there any prospect of a plan being adopted and real progress being made in the withdrawal of volunteers?

6.30 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: Before making a few observations on each of the sub-heads applying to Spain, I wish to join with other hon. Members in welcoming the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary in his new position. I hope he will exert his utmost efforts to deal fairly, impartially and humanely with this very difficult and painful question of the Spanish conflict. It is inevitable that the hon. Gentleman should suffer one disadvantage, as does his colleague the Foreign Secretary, in that he comes newly to the subject of foreign affairs, and has not had that long experience which his predecessor had of the infinite capacity of those Powers which desire to frustrate the intentions of non-intervention for manoeuvring and delaying. That fact adds to the anxiety with which we approach this Vote. I should like to take the subheads in the reverse order of that in which they appear on the Paper, because I think the penultimate Sub-head ZZ raises by far the most important issue, although it deals with a sum of only £800; but, as was said by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) in opening the Debate from the Opposition side, it is in a sense a token Vote.
As you said a moment ago, Captain Bourne, the general policy of non-intervention was agreed to by the House when it voted the Estimate previously, but here the Non-Intervention Committee is embarking upon a wholly new stage of its career, and the sum of £800 is intended to cover the preliminary expenses of the new scheme for the withdrawal of foreign volunteers from Spain. Therefore, in a sense, it is to a new policy that we are committing ourselves, and before doing so, we ought to consider whether we really want to commit ourselves to that new policy of the withdrawal of volunteers before we know a little more about how it will work. Several hon. Members have remarked that the sum involved is a small one, but to take a humble analogy, if it were a question of whether I should buy some article on the hire-purchase system, I should not be prepared to make my first payment on the ground that it was only a few shillings if I had not been

able to inspect the article first and to see exactly what I was to get.
I submit that we are entitled to know a little more about the lines on which it is proposed that the withdrawal of foreign volunteers should be carried out. Although we may not be allowed to know precisely what the formula is, a question which is in our minds is whether the formula is such that it will ensure withdrawal not merely proportionate to the number of foreign combatants on each side, but proportionate within each separate category. That is a point of enormous importance, and I think it affects the question of whether or not we ought to agree to this Vote, and whether indeed we want the preliminary arrangements to be entered into. Even if the proportion of combatants withdrawn were a fair proportion from both sides, unless a very substantial part of the combatants withdrawn belonged to the higher ranks, the result would be again, as it has been at every other stage of the Non-Intervention Committee's operations, almost wholly to the disadvantage of the Spanish Government.
Reference has already been made to the fact that the insurgents are far richer not only in the number of foreign combatants on their side, and that those foreign combatants are trained troops, whereas those on the side of the Spanish Government are genuine volunteers, but in the number of technicians which they have. The mere withdrawal of considerable numbers, if they consist of Italian infantry, who have not so far proved very valuable to the side which they were sent to help, will be of very little advantage to the Spanish Government, and will work out unfairly unless the technicians, the commanders on land and on sea—I emphasise the commanders on sea, for they are very important—the aviators, tank drivers, engineers and instructors, are withdrawn. Moreover, is it proposed that not only combatants, but so-called volunteers in the non-combatant services should be, withdrawn? We have heard rumours that there is a considerable number of Germans working in the telephone service and the railway service. It will be far more difficult to secure the withdrawal of the Germans, who are fewer in number but more valuable in quality than the Italian volunteers, owing to the fact that the Germans are so much more skilled in concealing


themselves. They do not have the impulse which their more flamboyant allies from the Southern country have to parade in uniforms.

Sir H. Croft: Does the hon. Lady suggest that the German technicians are necessarily more skilled than the Russian technicians who are running the whole of that side of the work in Barcelona?

Miss Rathbone: I am taking it for granted that if a certain number of German and Italian technicians is withdrawn, a corresponding proportion of Russian technicians will be withdrawn; but here I will quote the estimate given by the "Times" correspondent in an article a few weeks ago, in which he said that on the insurgent side there are about 80,000 Italians, and about 10,000 Germans, and that on the other side, there are about 20,000 volunteers altogether, including about a thousand Russians. Nobody imagines that the numbers on the Spanish Government side are anything like the numbers on the insurgent side. There is another aspect of the matter besides the question whether the withdrawal will really make a very great difference in the conflict. We have heard that withdrawal is one of three operations in this stage. The withdrawal is to be preceded by the resumption of control of the frontier, and it is to be followed by the granting of belligerent rights.
Those three operations have to be considered together. If control of the frontier were resumed, as some people are clamouring that it should be now, it would obviously be very hard on the Spanish Government, because the sea control is not complete. One of the weakest points in the scheme throughout has been that the sea control did not pretend to prevent the import of troops and munitions in vessels of war, nor did it pretend to prevent the arrival of seaplanes. It is notorious that the sea control has been far more to the advantage of the insurgents than the Government. German and Italian vessels have transported plenty of material by sea to the insurgents, whereas any attempt to take material over the French frontier has been liable to be stopped. It is exceedingly important that there should be no resumption of control on the French frontier before the original stipulation of a withdrawal of volunteers has been carried out.
There is then the question, after the withdrawal, of granting belligerent rights, to which the Government are pledged. I would like to have an assurance that the form of belligerent rights which will be granted will be the limited form which was first foreshadowed in the British proposal. I allude to these three operations because they hang together. Before we can know how the withdrawal of foreign combatants will work out, we have to consider what the Spanish Government, which might be expected to benefit most from the withdrawal of foreign combatants, will have to pay for the withdrawal in respect of the loss of any assistance which it gets over the French frontier and in respect of the greater damage of granting belligerent rights to the insurgents. The cleverness of the Italians and the Germans has been that at every stage of non-intervention they have so manoeuvred that they have always managed to make concessions at a time when those concessions had ceased to cost them anything. In the first place, there was the attempt to prevent munitions from getting through. We know that the Germans and Italians did not even pretend to consent to that until a fortnight later, when all the other countries—

The Deputy-Chairman: So far, the hon. Lady has kept strictly in order, but now she is going back into past history.

Miss Rathbone: I will obey your Ruling, Captain Bourne. I will sum up my observations on this matter by saying that at each of the three stages—first, the attempt to stop munitions going in; secondly, the attempt, which was made in December, 1936, to prevent the inflow of so-called volunteers; and, thirdly, the coastal and frontier control scheme which began in April, 1936—the Germans and Italians so manoeuvred that they did not even pretend to agree until they had first wasted weeks in negotiations and had spent those weeks very profitably in sending in to the insurgents everything they wanted to send. We have to be quite sure that that will not happen in this fourth and last stage of non-intervention. We have to be sure that there will not be such delays that the concession will be of no use when it comes, and we have to be sure that there will be a real withdrawal of foreign aid of all kinds and that the scheme will not be a fresh means of helping in the destruction of the Spanish


Government by reason of the fact that certain nations faithfully carry out their obligations and do not intervene, while other nations first delay and they openly break their pledges. Many hon. Members feel that the British Government and the French Government have a very heavy moral responsibility in this matter. It is not enough for honourable nations to keep strictly to their own part in the bargain if at the same time they turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to flagrant abuses and breaking of pledges by other Powers. It is because I am desperately anxious that there should be no repetition of that, that I submit we ought to be very scrupulous in seeing what it is to which we are committing ourselves before we vote this amount of £800 for the next stage of the non-intervention scheme.
I would like now to refer to the subhead which deals with the evacuation of refugees from Spain. I do not think any hon. Member will grudge the money that was spent in paying for a British ship to transport from Valencia some 4,000 non-combatants who had taken refuge in certain foreign missions in Madrid; but I feel very bitterly on the question why it is that English money has been abundantly voted for the evacuation of adult refugees of both sexes from foreign missions in Madrid—refugees who, from the nature of the case, were pro-Franco refugees—whereas, in spite of all our pleading, the Government would not vote one sixpence to help to remove child and women refugees from Bilbao at a time when that town was being destroyed by foreign aircraft. If it is possible for a British ship to go right into Valencia and pick up these Franco-ite adult refugees, we cannot see why it was not possible to allow British ships even to escort and protect, inside territorial waters, the British merchantmen which were hired by the Spanish Government to fetch out women and children. We know that there are technical explanations, but those of us who watched that stage in these proceedings were left with a bitter sense of unfairness in our hearts. We felt, somehow or other, that the assistance given to refugees has all been given to well-to-do Franco-ite refugees.

Sir H. Croft: Does the hon. Lady deny the fact that His Majesty's Ship "Southampton" conveyed a large number to safety and that at least 20,000 refugees were able to escape from the

northern coast of Spain largely owing to the assistance given by the British fleet?

Miss Rathbone: As to the escape of refugees from Gijon, may I remind the hon. and gallant Member—

The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out that there is no item in this Vote in regard to refugees from Northern Spain.

Miss Rathbone: Those refugees were on rafts and were in danger of their lives. They were not picked up at the ports as these Valencia refugees were. A great many of them were drowned because the British war vessels were not allowed to protect ships inside territorial waters.
I come now to item WW relating to the relief of distress in Spain and a grant of £5,000 to the International Red Cross. I do not grudge one penny of that money. I wish the amount were larger. But we would like to know more about the purpose for which it is being used. When we think of what the Red Cross stands for, or what it has stood for in most people's minds in every war up to this, it is rather strange to reflect that neither the International Red Cross Society nor the British Red Cross Society, both of which have substantial funds, have sent one hospital or one ambulance or any personnel at all to Spain. I believe that to be the case. They have, it is true, done valuable work in assisting the interchange of refugees and they have sent a certain amount of relief in kind, but I believe they have not sent one doctor, one nurse or one ambulance there. Is that not abrogating the natural function of the Red Cross?

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think the Minister can possibly be expected to answer for the Red Cross Society.

Miss Rathbone: I will not dwell upon that point, but when we are asked to vote £5,000 to this society we have a right to ask about the kind of work which the society has been doing, and why it has not been doing the particular kind of work which nearly everybody associates with its traditions and ideals. Finally, there is Item RR, which concerns the British contribution to the International Fund for the application of non-intervention in Spain. I recognise that we cannot go into the whole question of what has happened on the Portuguese frontier. We know that that frontier in


the early stages of the war was a sort of liaison office for the Franco-ites. We know, too, that the control over the Portuguese frontier has probably not been a great injury to General Franco, because he was able to get by sea all the goods he wanted. Therefore, we do not feel that the opening of the Portuguese frontier is on the same level as the opening of the French frontier. Personally, I wish that the Opposition, instead of putting down an Amendment to reduce this Vote, had offered complete opposition to it as far as it refers to the work of the Non-Intervention Committee. I look upon that work as a work which was well-intentioned in the beginning but which has been, since the first month of its operation, a disgrace to the names of Britain and France, and a disaster to the Republic of Spain. Therefore, I would take no part in voting one penny towards it.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: As these Estimates are largely concerned with refugees may I offer a welcome to the refugee from the Ministry of Labour who now occupies a position in another danger zone, namely, the Foreign Office? I wish to refer to the item under Sub-head VV in respect of the evacuation and maintenance of British refugees from China. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that these refugees are described as British subjects, mostly women and children, and that they were evacuated mainly from Shanghai. The Minister said that the number was about 3,800. We are all glad that these women and children were removed from the shambles of Shanghai, but evidently the cost of their removal is to be treated as a sort of loan. It looks rather like the sort of poor law relief that is granted in the North of England to the refugees from poverty because we read
Undertakings to repay have been obtained from the individuals concerned and the sum recovered will in due course be credited to Appropriations-in-Aid.
How much have these British subjects, mostly women and children, undertaken to repay? I contrast that with the item under subhead XX.
Evacuation of refugees from Spain. Provision required to pay cost to 17th December, 1937, of chartering a ship to transport from Valencia some 4,000 non-combatants who had taken refuge in certain foreign missions in Madrid on account of the civil war in Spain,

and the cost of messing the refugees while on board.
Were any undertakings to repay asked for in that case, and if not, why not? If such undertakings were asked for, how much is expected to be repaid? The statement seems to be very definite that the Governments concerned will make repayment. The Estimate contains the statement that repayments received from the Governments from whose missions in Madrid these refugees have been removed will be credited in due course. What guarantee have the Government that any such money will be refunded? I ask the Committee to note the difference between the case of British refugees from China who are asked to repay the money and the case of the refugees from Spain, most probably not British, from whom no undertaking to repay has been asked.
I wish to refer briefly to the grant of His Majesty's Ambassador in China under subhead UU. I cannot understand why Britain should be called upon to pay for Japan's crimes. The victim of violence is not usually compensated by his own friends, and damages ought to be paid by those who do the damage. It is not that we on this side are against the payment of this £5,000 to the Ambassador, but we desire that equal justice should be done both to Ambassadors and to ex-service men who suffer in their country's service. I say that the Ambassador should be paid, but that all the men who have suffered for their country should be paid likewise.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I do not wish to begin by extending any general welcome to the new Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Rather would I give him a little advice. I would advise him not to take too seriously these fulsome eulogies. Exactly the same felicitations were handed out to his predecessor by the very same people.

Miss Rathbone: And they were deserved.

Mr. Gallacher: But when the hon. Gentleman's predecessor was most in need of the support of those people it was not forthcoming, and I warn him that they will let him down just as easily and as quickly as they let down his predecessor. I wish to touch on the question of the Assyrians. Probably if the Minister of


Labour were here he could give us some interesting quotations from the Scripture about the Assyrians and their habits in Palestine. An hon. Member who spoke earlier said that we ought to be grateful to these Assyrians because they had given us valuable service during the War. Against whom was that service given? Against the Germans. Now the Government have put down this miserable Vote as their return to the Assyrians, thus demonstrating that they are more interested now in making friends with the Germans than in caring for the Assyrians who gave them such valuable help against the Germans. The Assyrians, of course, as well as many neglected ex-service men in this country, will note the fact that the Government are not in the least concerned with those who gave service at that time. They are now more concerned about playing up to the rulers of Germany.
As regards the items in respect of the Red Cross, many hon. Members have spoken of the valuable work that the Red Cross organisation has been doing. But when I see £5,000 extra in this Vote as a grant by the Government to the Red Cross organisation, I ask myself: Are the Government giving this money for humanitarian purposes, or will they utilise the Red Cross organisation for ulterior purposes? It is no use asking the Minister for a reply to that question. But everyone who joins the secret service whether he is attached to the Red Cross or any other organisation understands when he joins that, immediately he is discovered, he will be repudiated by the Government. Never has any Government at any time admitted responsibility for a secret service agent, once that agent has been discovered. It would scarcely be worth while to ask whether the Government have any ulterior motive in subscribing this money to the Red Cross. I am certain they would deny any ulterior motive, but the Minister will permit me to have my own suspicions and my own opinions about this grant.
Regarding the extra money spent in connection with the evacuation of volunteers, it is, I think, permissible to ask whether the item "volunteers" includes the actual armies of invasion? Does "volunteers" include the modern and highly equipped aeroplanes that have been sent from Germany and Italy to Spain? And does "volunteers" include the

highly specialised technicians who are there in abundance, and does it include submarines and other warships that are being used on Franco's side? I do not know whether the Minister will answer those questions, but certainly we are entitled to know something about the matter before we decide that this money should be spent. I am opposed to a single penny of it being spent, because I know from past experience the trickery that goes on. The hon. Member who spoke from the Front Bench below the Gangway said that we should use every diplomatic means to stop the sending of men and material to Spain. With what Government would we use diplomatic action for that purpose? There are only two Governments who have any responsibility. What other Governments?

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: There is Russia.

Mr. Gallacher: Well, what Governments are associated with Russia? You keep saying "Russia," but you do not say how Russia gets the goods in. There must be other Governments associated with Russia to enable it to get goods into Spain. Is it the French Government, the Polish Government? Immediately you face the question it is obvious that there are only two Governments concerned in this deliberate invasion of Spain. But does the heading of "volunteers" include all these categories I have mentioned, because unless these categories are included, the whole thing is simply another trick directed against the legitimate Government of Spain? That brings me to the question of non-intervention. I say quite emphatically with the hon. Lady for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) that we should oppose the voting of a single penny for the Non-Intervention Committee. There never has been in the history of international affairs such a shoddy and unscrupulous trick played upon any people.

The Deputy-Chairman: I stopped the hon. Lady when she tried to criticise non-intervention.

Mr. Gallacher: I thought the hon. Lady said that the whole of this money for non-intervention should be opposed. If that is not what she was saying, at any rate it is what I am saying.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is the point. I stopped the hon. Lady quite


definitely from proceeding to deal with that subject.

Mr. Gallacher: But on the Estimates we are asked in connection with "Non-Intervention in Spain (Grant-in-Aid)," to give an increased amount of £12,000.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman does not realise that that is the heading for the original Estimate. This is an increase of £12,000 in that original Estimate, and the hon. Gentleman can speak only of the reasons for that increase.

Mr. Gallacher: Well, I am opposed to this £12,000 being granted. I consider that the only thing the Non-Intervention Committee succeeded in doing was to prevent the Spanish Government from getting the armaments it required, while all kinds of armaments were being loaded for the use of the butchers in Spain who represent the powerful and wealthy interests; and because the Non-Intervention Committee was deliberately used for that purpose we should not vote another penny for it. There is not one of these Estimates that makes the slightest appeal to me, and I would ask the Committee, and especially hon. Members opposite who still profess to believe in democracy and constitutional government to give no support to what is going on in connection with the Fascist invasion of Spain, but to oppose these Estimates and finish with the Non-Intervention Committee.

7.6 p.m.

Sir Walter Smiles: I intervene only because of something said by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) about the Assyrians. It is exactly 20 years ago this month that I, and I dare say a good many other Members of this House, saw these Assyrians streaming down the hills in the rain from North Persia, absolutely starved, driven by the Turks out of their homes where many thousands of them had been massacred, and I never thought that 20 years later in this House the British Government would still be liquidating that debt. I appeal to the hon. Member when he proposes to vote against this Supplementary Estimate to remember the suffering of those Assyrians in the cause of the Allies. At any rate, on this particular Vote he might perhaps change his mind.

The hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) mentioned the number of refugees saved from Spain on one side or the other, but I seem to recall a statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty in which he said that nearly three times as many refugees were saved as the number which she mentioned.

The Deputy-Chairman: That question does not arise on these Estimates.

Sir W. Smiles: I apologise. I am not the first to be called to order on this point, but I think the hon. Lady was far craftier than myself in getting over her point.

Miss Rathbone: Do not misunderstand me. It is quite true that the First Lord of the Admiralty was alluding to refugees to whom British ships had given protection outside territorial waters. I do not deny that protection was given, but they were not actually evacuated in British ships.

Sir W. Smiles: I think that when a man is saved it matters little if he is saved inside or outside territorial waters.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. G. Strauss: I feel, like many of my colleagues, very doubtful about the utility of voting this sum of £800 under ZZ, and I base my doubts on the past failures of the Non-Intervention Committee. When responsible statesmen, who have without question been violating non-intervention up to now, continue to make statements affirming that they are going to continue to do so, one wonders what is the use of this preliminary work for the withdrawal of all volunteers. About a week ago there appeared in a German paper called "Wille und Macht," the official paper of the Hitler Youth movement, a statement by the Italian Foreign Minister, and it is important to note that this statement appeared after the overtures had been arranged between the Government of this country and the Italian Government. In that article this sentence appeared:
On Spanish soil the Italian and German volunteers are fighting side by side, and showing with what determination the youth of our two nations serve the cause to which they have dedicated themselves.
If that statement does not mean that the youth of Italy have dedicated themselves to serve the cause of one ride in Spain I do not know what it does mean. It is


a plain and positive assertion that it is the intention of the Italian authorities to continue in the line they have taken in the Spanish conflict. In those circumstances, remembering the past history of non-intervention, it is extremely doubtful whether it is any use entertaining any hope that intervention in Spain will really be stopped by anything that the Non-Intervention Committee will do.
I want to ask a question as to what is meant by "volunteers" in sub-head ZZ? I assume that "volunteers" is not to be interpreted strictly as those who go there voluntarily and have not been conscripted, because if that interpretation were put upon the word the whole thing would be utterly farcical. But does the withdrawal of volunteers mean also the withdrawal of what is, after all, even more important than volunteers or conscripts, namely, the armaments to support those volunteers and conscripts? And is it proposed in this preliminary work that arrangements shall be considered both for the withdrawal of armaments and the prohibition of further armaments reaching Spain? I think there is no doubt in the mind of anyone who has followed the Spanish contest, and particularly anyone who has been to Spain, as I have recently, that the support given by tanks, guns and aeroplanes is having much more influence in this war than actual man-power; so that the withdrawal of man-power, even if it were accomplished, would have little effect on the civil war in Spain compared with the withdrawal of armaments.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to tanks, guns and aeroplanes that he saw behind the Spanish Government's lines on his visit to Spain, or to some other tanks, guns and aeroplanes?

Mr. Strauss: I was referring to armaments on both sides, but I do not think the hon. Member or any hon. Member of this House will deny that an overwhelming number of armaments—guns, tanks and aeroplanes—have been supplied from foreign sources to the Franco side, compared with those which have reached the Spanish Government. Indeed, this question was put to me on more than one occasion when I was in Spain. They said they could not understand the attitude of a great democratic country like Great Britain in this matter. The insur-

gents were able, virtually without let or hindrance, to get the man-power, the guns, the tanks and the aeroplanes that they wanted. Yet, on the side of the Republican Government, they did not want people from other countries to go and fight for them as volunteers, and they did not want the gift of armaments. All that they demanded was the right to be able to buy the armaments that they wanted, to buy anti-aircraft guns with which to drive off the aeroplanes which were murdering their women and children, and the great democracies of the world, particularly Great Britain, were preventing that happening.
I say that, unless the proposition now before the Committee is intended to lead to a cessation of the armaments arriving on both sides, but particularly on one side, because it is virtually only one side that is concerned, the withdrawal of volunteers, or the cessation of the shipment of new volunteers, is comparatively unimportant. I am very interested to know whether the Minister will be able to assure us that the existing conditions, under which armaments have been able to arrive without any difficulty on the insurgents' side in Spain, are proposed to be changed by the Non-Intervention Committee, because if not, I think it is an absolute waste of money that the Committee will be voting this evening.

7.17 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I wish to refer, first of all, to the items dealing wih China. I note the £5,000 that is being voted to Sir Hughe Knatchbull-Hugessen, and, like other speakers, quite naturally I make no objection to that, but I would like to know whether, when we are compensating our Ambassador so handsomely, similar or appropriate compensation is being made to those British seamen, in both China and Spanish seas, who are losing their belongings. I have among my constituents seafaring men who have lost their belongings, and so far they have been very shabbily treated indeed. I regret that, while we are asked to give a very substantial grant to one man, who at any rate, I suppose, is still in the enjoyment of his official salary as Ambassador, the Government have not put down any grant for the compensation of those seamen who have lost their belongings and in some cases their lives, and I would like to ask whether these men have got to wait


for compensation until some hypothetical sum, at some hypothetical time, is recovered from the Japanese Government, or until some still more hypothetical sum, at some still more hypothetical time, is recovered from General Franco. Without something for these men, the Estimates are very sadly lacking.
In regard to Iitem VV, I notice the statement that
undertakings to repay have been obtained from the individuals concerned,
who are stated to be mostly women and children evacuated from Shanghai. This seems to me to be a piece of the most extraordinary meanness on the part of His Majesty's Government. Many of these people who have been evacuated have been in China on Government work, in connection with British trade, or on mission work, and people who go there and are nationals of this country surely expect—though I admit that in these days, when we are dealing with Fascist countries, it is a great deal to expect—that they carry with them the protection of the Government of Great Britain. The Government have signally failed to protect their nationals, either in the matter of their diplomatic policy or in any other way, and they are therefore in danger of losing their lives in the present hostilities. Surely it would be only the decent thing for these women and children—whose husbands presumably are losing their livelihood as a result of Japanese aggression in China, and who are also losing practically everything they have except what they stand up in—who are being evacuated by their own country, to whom they naturally look for protection, that this country, which is spending hundreds of millions on defence, might take these people out of the danger zone in Shanghai without first asking them to sign a paper that they will repay the money. I think that is about as mean a bit of work as possible, and I do not know whether hon. Members opposite support their Government in that characteristic piece of meanness.
With regard to the evacuation of refugees from Spain, we hear an awful lot of cant from the other side and from Members below the Gangway on this side about non-intervention, but surely we might expect, if we are talking about nonintervention, impartiality, and the other

abstract things with which the Government connect their policy in Spain, some impartiality in dealing with refugees. I think this is the only Vote that is being asked for with regard to the evacuation of refugees from Spain. The previous Foreign Secretary, in a rather embarrassed reply to a question, pointed out that the number of supporters of General Franco who had been directly evacuated by this country was largely in excess of any who had supported the other side, and most of them, I think, walked into Government Spain. In this case the British taxpayer is being asked to provide this money in order to take away people who are largely wealthy people. I happen to know something about the whole of this refugee business. Part of our Consular work is the selection of the refugees who should receive the protection of the Consular mission in Madrid. They have been a very carefully selected body, and our Consular agent in Madrid has made it not doubtful at all as to where his sympathies in the matter lie.
I would like to know from the Minister how many working-class supporters of General Franco, if there are any in Madrid—and presumably there are some—have been rescued by our present Consular Agent there. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that they all belong very much to the upper classes and are very strong supporters of General Franco. Why we, who are selecting from among our own nationals, who have lost everything, should take these wealthy refugees from Madrid at our expense, at the same time as our First Lord of the Admiralty has stated that he could not pick up those who were actually drowning before his eyes in the sea off Spain because if he rescued the children, he would have to rescue their mothers and grandmothers on the land as well, I do not know.
Coming to item ZZ, I cannot understand why my colleagues are so anxious to stay on both sides in this matter. If a greater amount of material has come into Government Spain than to the rebels, the fact that, through the Non-Intervention Committee, we have imposed a ban on our arms going to Spain and have collected a large number of other countries to do the same, does not abrogate in international law the right of the legally recognised Government of Spain to buy


arms with which to keep order within their own borders and to put down rebels.

Mr. Deputy-Chairman: That does not arise on this occasion.

Miss Wilkinson: No, but it has been said so often by everybody else that I do not see why I should not say it, too. The continuation of this Non-Intervention Committee and this £800, to which I call attention in order to keep myself in order, does not seem to me to deal with that point at all. When we deal with volunteers in this matter, I regard the people who are fighting with the international brigade as real volunteers. They are volunteers. They have not been sent out by any Government, and the only volunteers that there are in Spain, except for a very, very few, are those who are fighting on the side of the Government. While, therefore, you say that this £800 is a contribution to preliminary expenses in connection with the withdrawal of volunteers, it will in fact be a contribution to take away from the Government those few thousands of men who are genuine volunteers in the international brigade. Everybody, including the supporter of General Franco, who has just been placed on the Government Front Bench, as a gesture to the friends of Franco, no doubt under instructions from Rome—[Interruption.] I do not want to flatter the hon. Gentleman, but as he seems likely to be in the queue when the present unfortunate Under-Secretary, to whom we offer our condolences rather than our congratulations, has been broken, as each one of his predecessors has been broken, no doubt the representative of Signor Mussolini will have better luck. I should like to say that even those representatives on the Government Bench would admit that the organised troops sent under organised officers by the organised instructions of Signor Mussolini and Hen-Hitler are not really volunteers, and so I want to know what this £800 has to do with them, and whether it is not mere camouflage.
We go through the most elaborate charades in this House, whenever we are discussing Spain, in using the word "volunteers," pretending that the rebels and the Government are on the same basis so far as our Government are concerned, but how can they be when their representatives sit on the Government

Bench and conduct the operations of the Non-Intervention Committee? I should like to know whether this is merely a token sum and whether in fact, as part of these new negotiations into which they are about to enter, His Majesty's Government will make to Signor Mussolini and to Herr Hitler the generous offer of paying them if they will be so kind as to take away their volunteers from Spain.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Lady is now going far beyond the Supplementary Estimate.

Miss Wilkinson: I have finished.

7.30 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I am going to speak within the narrow limits of this Debate. There are three matters with which I wish to deal, and I will notify you of them, Captain Bourne, in order that you may keep me within the limits of order. The first is on Class II, Vote 1—salaries of the Foreign Office and extra pay of additional staff necessitated by the setting up of the Committee for Non-Intervention in Spain. The second is Sub-head RR, under Vote 2, which is an extra sum of £12,000 which it is proposed to pay to the English corporation which represents the Non-Intervention Committee. The third is Sub-head ZZ, the contribution of £800 in respect of expenses in connection with the withdrawal of volunteers from Spain. With regard to the first item, I want to put forward an argument that that expenditure has never been justified, that there was no justification for the setting up of the Committee for Non-Intervention, and that there was no justification for appointing additional staff as the result; indeed, that the whole position would have been far better and far more economically handled by the Foreign Office in this country had that committee never existed. I must, obviously, give my reasons for that argument, for it would not be fair or right merely to leave the Committee with an assertion of that kind.
The first statement I desire to make is, I believe, supported by all the evidence. Suppose at the very outset of the civil war there had been no non-intervention at all, undoubtedly the rebels would have been defeated in a very few weeks. Had the Spanish Government, in other words, not been deprived of their legitimate resources by the Non-Intervention Agreement and the Committee set up under it, they would have been able, with the


assistance of those resources, to do what everybody wants to do, that is, terminate the civil war as rapidly as possible. Hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved and this mass of suffering and tragedy would never have had to be gone through. However, the Non-Intervention Committee was set up—unfortunately, I am convinced—with the result that at stage after stage the legitimate Government of Spain has been hampered by non-intervention. Someone remarked on one occasion when non-intervention had died down for a bit that they hoped it was not going to break out again because of its serious and damaging effect on the Spanish Government. Now we are apparently going to see it break out again under this sub-head ZZ.
Stage by stage as one follows through the work of the Non-Intervention Committee, which has necessitated this extra expenditure of the Foreign Office in the way of salaries, one finds that every act that it accomplished—not the acts it failed to accomplish—was an act against the interests of the Spanish Government. Whenever any restraint has been put nominally on both sides, it has been effective against the Spanish Government but never effective against the rebels. One cannot but come to the conclusion on examining, as I would like to do if I had more time, every action of the Non-Intervention Committee, that this Government which has played so large a part in the direction of the Committee, has been activated by the desire for the defeat of the Spanish Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If they have not, then they have been responsible for the most dishonest and disgusting behaviour. This Government is presumably bound by the obligations of the various covenants and treaties that it has undertaken. The only conceivable excuse for non-intervention was if those Governments which joined in it would guarantee that it should be applied equally on both sides. That is the only conceivable excuse that could have justified this expenditure of £4,000. Instead of that, however, we have seen the Government time after time either prevaricate about what is happening in Spain, or close their eyes to what is happening and pretending publicly that it is not happening at all.
It is unfortunate that nowadays one cannot believe a word that is said by a

Foreign Secretary in this House. That was illustrated admirably the other day, and I wonder how many hon. Members noticed it. When the late Foreign Secretary was making his excuses or his explanation, he stated that one of the things that had disgusted him most as regards the Spanish and Italian situation was the knowledge that, immediately after the making of the Mediterranean Anglo-Italian Treaty, large numbers of Italian troops had been landed in Spain. He was frequently asked that very question in the House and he denied any knowledge. One can go through the reports of this House and find that time after time it has been denied from that Box. Now the late Foreign Secretary tells us he knew it perfectly well. How can we believe what is said by the Government at that Box when, after a Foreign Secretary has gone and wants to explain why—

The Deputy-Chairman: That has nothing to do with this Supplementary Estimate.

Sir S. Cripps: I was only illustrating the unreliability of the information that we get on these points, because I was afraid that somebody might pick me up on the things I was saying and say that it was not what the Foreign Secretary said on such and such a date. I was only preparing the ground to get rid of that argument. Let me return to the main line of my argument. It was that the uniform actions of the Non-Intervention Committee have been such that we ought never to have expended the sum which is required in this Supplementary Estimate. The main complaint we have against the actions of the Non-Intervention Committee is not so much the various matters that have been devised and proposed by one country or another, but that this and other Governments have uniformly carried out those proposals in such a way as always to damage one side. They decide to stop munitions, but they stop them for the Government and not for Franco. They decide to stop volunteers, but they stop them for the Government and not for Franco.

The Deputy-Chairman: That argument does not at all follow from the Estimates before the Committee. We cannot now discuss the whole policy of nonintervention.

Sir S. Cripps: I am dealing with the cost of additional staff and extra pay necessitated by the setting up of the Committee for Non-Intervention, and I am arguing that it would have been better had it never been set up at all, that this expenditure should never have been incurred, and that it certainly should not be continued.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that that does not arise on this Estimate. That question of policy has been settled already by the Debate on the main Estimate. This Vote is merely for additional staff at the Foreign Office to carry out certain work.

Sir. S. Cripps: Then I must put my argument on this basis, that we ought to have nothing to do with the Non-Intervention Committee and, therefore, that we should not have employed a staff at the Foreign Office to have anything to do with it. This is obviously some sort of liaison staff, and the work of the Non-Intervention Committee is such that we ought not to have a liaison staff. It is not worth it. We ought to dissociate ourselves from anything so dishonest in foreign affairs and in international policy because it has been utilised throughout for one side. [Interruption.] The hon. Member is tempting me to go into this matter in detail, but the Chairman has told me that I cannot do so. I have the notes here, and I should otherwise have been prepared to do it.
Let me pass to the question of whether we should give a further sum of money to the Non-Intervention Committee at this time, as regards both the £12,000 and the £800. The £800 is a preliminary expenditure in connection with a new scheme. Is it worth while putting on a new act in this farce, or have we seen enough? We believe that we have seen enough of it. Theoretically, of course, the withdrawal of volunteers—which is a word used in order not to offend Signor Mussolini and to cover Italian troops—would at one stage of the proceedings have been an excellent thing. It would have been a fair thing if the volunteers had been withdrawn from both sides. There has, however, now come a time, as everybody knows, when General Franco would be glad to see the last of some of the volunteers who are in Spain. He is no longer so urgently pressed for man power providing he can get two other things, namely, materials and the right to blockade the eastern coast of Spain. He

would sacrifice the whole of the Italians for these two things, which are far more valuable to him at this moment.
That is the plan towards which this £800 is to be spent by the Government. It is to try to bring into operation a plan which, at this moment, is the plan that can give the greatest help to General Franco and be the most damaging to the Spanish Government. It is part and parcel of every stage through which the Non-Intervention Committee and the Government have gone. That is why the Italians or the Germans may consent to this plan because, at this moment, it will give them and their allies in Spain just the vital things which they believe to be essential for the purpose of conquering the Spanish Government. Materials will not be interfered with under this plan. There is no suggestion that materials will be stopped going into Spain. There is only a suggestion that a certain number of effectives are to be withdrawn from both sides, and, what cannot be done at the present moment, that is, a blockade of the Spanish forts, will, if belligerent rights are granted, enable Franco to control ships going into Spanish ports, be they neutral or Spanish. If we still thought there was a chance of even-handed and just administration, through the Non-Intervention Committee, of some scheme for depriving both sides of weapons and assistance equally, we should, perhaps, not be unwilling to consider the expenditure not of £800 but of £800,000, because then we know that the legitimate Government of Spain would very quickly win the victory which we desire to see it win. We are not ashamed of saying that we urgently desire the Spanish Government to be victorious. It is only the other side who are ashamed to say, what is a fact, that they anxiously desire to see the victory of General Franco.

Mr. Hannah: We do not.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Member is in his usual state of isolation.

Mr. Hannah: No.

Sir S. Cripps: He is the only one who calls out in that way, denying the accusation. That is why we are opposing this Item ZZ. There are in this plan as regards volunteers, as it has been put forward so far, infinite possibilities for


prejudicing still further the circumstances against the Spanish Government. It can be wangled in every sort of way. It has to give what the Government have always desired, the appearance of fairness, and to conceal the fact of the prejudice to the Spanish Government. Throughout the whole of this history they have used phrases and pretended actions which were intended to make the people of the country think that they were acting fairly. In fact, those actions have been designed to advantage one side, and here we are opening a fresh method of giving that unfair advantage to one side as liberally as it has been in the past. Indeed, we on this side are particularly alarmed now, in view of the recent change in the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government. Before, we were afraid of the actions of the Non-Intervention Committee, of which His Majesty's Government was a powerful member, but now, with a change in the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government, the Non-Intervention Committee becomes an even more dangerous weapon in the hands of international Fascism and against the Government of Spain, because this recent approach, this "Now or never" attempt to deal with Mussolini, is going to put the Prime Minister and the Noble Lord who is the Foreign Secretary in a far weaker position, so far as the actions of the Non-Intervention Committee are concerned, than ever before. It has all got to come in the "Now or never"; this will have to be settled at the same time; and any nice little scruples of Liberalism which might have survived in the person of the late Foreign Secretary—for which he has been chucked out of the job—will have to be put aside. This new ideology which has been introduced, the thin end of the wedge—

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is a long wedge.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, it is a long wedge, and that makes it all the worse—this thin end of the wedge will be introduced not only into the Government but into the actions of the Non-Intervention Committee as well, and it is more than ever certain, we believe, that methods of this kind—the control of volunteers, the regulation of shipping, whatever it may be—will be utilised to the disadvantage of the Spanish Government. That Government has fought more gallantly perhaps than any

Government to maintain its independence. It and the Spanish people have performed feats of heroism which few people suspected they were capable of two years ago, and they are still fighting desperately. We pretend, under this Non-Intervention Committee, to hold the ropes. Instead of that, we have uniformly been trying to help one side, and very effectively trying to help one side, and I believe that this is only a new device by which that help is to be perpetuated in a more damaging and dangerous form. It is because we on this side want to do all we can to protect the Spanish Government from this fresh onslaught against non-intervention, from which they have suffered enough already, that we shall vote against this Supplementary Estimate to-night.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Butler: Before I address myself to the many points which have been raised in this Debate I must thank those hon. and right hon. Members who have offered me either their condolences or their congratulations, and I hope that if they cancel each other out I shall at any rate be able to preserve sanity in the difficult task which I have before me. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is one whose performances I have learned to regard in my past experience in this House, and it therefore gives me pleasure, mingled with some concern, that I should be crossing swords with him to-night. I have not perhaps the high-flown style or the learned diction of the hon. and learned Member, and perhaps I have not all his erudition, but to-night, at any rate, it is not my task to go into the broad generalisations which he has drawn from a Supplementary Estimate. Mine is the more pedestrian task of the Under-Secretary, whose business it is to account to the Committee for the expenditure to which the hon. and learned Member referred. He drew several very interesting generalisations on the subject of our foreign policy, past, present and future, from the item of £4,000 devoted to salaries. Let me draw the attention of the Committee to what this expenditure entails. It entails extra payment for one interpreter, one French shorthand-typist, 14 typists, three clerks, two office-keepers and a charwoman.

Sir S. Cripps: May I ask whether it is the last-named who is now running the foreign policy of the Government?

Mr. Butler: When I decided to give the Committee these details I took a private bet with myself that the hon. and learned Member would raise that point. I decided, nevertheless, in the interests of accuracy, for which all Ministers stand—including my predecessor, whose honesty in the statements he has made has been impugned to-night—that it was my duty to give every detail in my possession to the Committee. I propose now to try to answer some of the points which have been raised in the Debate. I conceive that to be my duty on a Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), who opened the Debate, referred to the present situation with regard to observations on the Portuguese frontier, and asked why the cost of observation there had been over-estimated. When the Estimate was drawn up very little information was available as to the likely expenditure upon travelling and upon transport—whether observers would get about by motor-car or otherwise. The number of observers actually required was found to be fewer than had been expected, and the fact that there has been some suspension of observation has had the effect of reducing the Estimate.
I was asked by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) what the observers are doing, whether they are sitting in cafes and idling away their time. When the scheme of observation was suspended we had to decide what to do with this corps of observers, and it was thought that in the interests of the future, in the event of control being reestablished, it was wiser to have those observers available, and therefore they are waiting until such time as control may be re-established. The same hon. Member also asked about the case of the ex-Ambassador in China and whether there was any precedent for a grant of this kind. Before coming to the Committee I tried to find whether there was a precedent, but, as far as we know, these very unfortunate and singular circumstances have not occurred before, and so there can be said to be no exact precedent. I am authorised to say that any case of this sort in the future must be considered on its merits. With regard to the possibility of compensation by Japan, it was and remains the view of His Majesty's Government that this matter was not one to be condoned by

the payment of monetary compensation by the Japanese, and the form of a grant was preferred.
I was asked by the hon. Member for I arrow (Miss Wilkinson) whether compensation is and will be given in the case of naval ratings and others who have suffered during the Sino-Japanese conflict. I would refer to an answer given on 2nd February to the hon. and gallant Member for Rochester (Captain Plugge) by the late Foreign Secretary. That is an example of cases of compensation and of the machinery of compensation available to deal with trouble of that sort. The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) raised the point as to how much the Spaniards themselves have paid for the evacuation of refugees. The payment was effected in something like this way: the Consul, in conjunction with the Red Cross, organised the transport of refugees in the foreign missions from Madrid to Valencia. His Majesty's Government incurred no expense on this particular part of the journey. The Red Cross provided the money and the Swiss Government gave a particular grant, and we believe that some of the refugees also contributed. The hon. Member raised one or two other points to which I will reply later.
The hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) asked about the evacuation of British subjects from Nanking and also about the position in Nanking. I am afraid that the latter point cannot be regarded as coming within this Supplementary Estimate, but I can assure him that according to my information the Japanese have taken steps to send an officer to see that there is no recurrence of the sort of events that took place there. In regard to the evacuation of British subjects, the normal strength of the British community in Nanking was just over 100. By the date of the atrocities to which he referred the number had been reduced to 22, and through the kindness of Messrs. Jardine, Mathieson and Company, to whom the thanks of His Majesty's Government have been conveyed, a hulk was placed at the disposal of our Consul for the reception of refugees, and with the aid of this they were able to proceed to a place of safety. I think we should pay a further tribute to the assistance given, and to the admirable arrangements made, by His Majesty's Consul in Nanking. He


was specially commended at the time by His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires.
Points have been raised about the demand of an undertaking from those British refugees moved from Shanghai to Hong Kong. Between 17th and 24th August of last year, a very short period, 4,058 persons, of whom about 3,800 were British subjects, were sent to Hong Kong. Of the British subjects about 2,300 found their own accommodation in Hong Kong and paid for themselves. Only about 500 became a charge upon the Government. It has been said by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Sexton) and others, that it is very unfair to ask refugees to give an undertaking that they will attempt to repay money expended upon them; but it must be remembered that many of these refugees have money which we were told they were unable to obtain because their funds were lying within the area of hostilities. Many of them, I know from personal knowledge, were people who could frankly afford to pay when they could get the money belonging to them. In the circumstances, I think it is quite legitimate for His Majesty's Government to ask for undertakings that they will do their best to repay the sums in question. I was asked by the hon. Member for Kingswinford whether the evacuation of the refugees from Nanking was covered by this sub-head of expenditure. The answer is, yes.

Mr. A. Henderson: In the case of those refugees who were not in a position to pay, can the Under-Secretary say that the Government do not propose to bring pressure to bear upon them?

Mr. Butler: All that I can say is that it is hoped to obtain, as an Appropriation-in-Aid, as much money as possible for these people. I cannot say more than that we hope to get the money. In our humanitarian work we are actuated by humanitarian principles, which I hope will be carried out in whatever we may do. One or two points were raised by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone). While I do not want to follow the arguments she used, I must correct one or two impressions which she seemed to have formed. She said, among other things, that we were only too keen to spend money in helping supporters of the insurgent side in Spain, and that we did not spend money help-

ing the supporters of the Government side. My answer is that the amount of money spent by the Government in affording naval protection to British and Spanish vessels engaged in evacuations from Bilbao, Santander, Gijon and other places, far exceeded the cost of chartering this particular vessel. That is the answer to the suggestion that we have tried to favour one side rather than the other.

Miss Rathbone: Does the hon. Member deny that the cost per head incurred for the refugees evacuated from Valencia in a British ship must have been far higher, because it covered only a relative handful of well-to-do refugees, whereas the other was spread out over the whole population of the Basque country?

Mr. Butler: The sums spent in saving the refugees on the other side in Spain were infinitely greater than the sums spent in saving the refugees referred to by the hon. Lady. Our humanitarian work is directed towards helping both sides in this conflict. Several other points were raised. The hon. Member for Jarrow said we had helped from Madrid only members of the upper class, and she passed some reflections upon the conduct of the British Consul at Madrid. I should not like to accept her observations, but rather to say that in that particular case it happened that those most in need were from the class she has described as the upper class. I would remind her, however, that the vast number of Government supporters evacuated from the north coast and those who were assisted by the British Navy were from the lower classes in Spain, and some of the most needy. Therefore, any suggestion that our protection has been devoted to helping one side more than the other is refuted by the facts.
I was asked by one hon. Member whether undertakings were obtained from the foreign governments concerned that they would contribute to the cost of evacuating from Valencia the refugees in their respective foreign missions. The answer to that question is, yes. A final point about the relief of distress was referred to by the hon. Lady. Speaking of the International Red Cross she said some rather wounding things about the work they are doing. I agree that they themselves feel that they could do more had they more money. No doubt if they had


more money they could send more ambulances and do more work than they have done. They have, however, undertaken medical relief, negotiations for the exchange of hostages and inquiries about the relations of Spaniards on one side and the other. In deference to the work of the International Red Cross it is my duty to mention these facts.
I think I have covered most of the points that have been raised. I should not be in order were I to go into more detail on the major policy. I will only say, in answer to the legitimate questions which have been put to me about the future of the withdrawal of troops, the future of the Non-Intervention Committee, and the future of the difficult problems which lie before us, that these matters have to be dealt with by the Non-Intervention Committee, and it is too early at this stage to give any of the assurances which have been desired. Nevertheless, it would be legitimate for the Committee to vote the £800 referred to in Vote ZZ, because in our heart of hearts we are all in favour of some scheme for the withdrawal of volunteers which will fit into the general British plan or the plan which finally emerges from the deliberations of the Non-Inter-

vention Committee. If that is our view, it is surely worth while making preliminary inquiries with the object of bringing a satisfactory scheme into effect.

Mr. Grenfell: How long does the Under-Secretary think the preliminary work will occupy?

Mr. Butler: I am afraid that I cannot give a time-table. I wish I could. I understand that the Non-Intervention Committee are setting about their problems with as much dispatch as possible.

Mr. Mander: In regard to the Assyrians, can the Under-Secretary say what has happened about the Archbishop's fund, and can he say anything about the danger to the security of the Assyrians left in the Ghab area?

Mr. Butler: I am afraid that the Archbishop's fund does not come under this Vote.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £85,564, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 209.

Division No. 126.]
AYES.
[8.10 p.m.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Milner, Major J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Montague, F.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Groves, T. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Haskney, S.)


Bellenger, F. J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Muff, G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Benson, G.
Hayday, A.
Owen, Major G.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Parkinson, J. A.


Bromfield, W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pearson, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Buchanan, G.
Hicks, E. G.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Burke, W. A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Charleton, H. C.
Hopkin, D.
Ritson, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Cove, W. G.
John, W.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sexton, T. M.


Daggar, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Day, H.
Kirby, B. V.
Stephen, C.


Dobbie, W.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lawson, J. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Logan, D. G.
Tomlinson, G.


Frankel, D.
Lunn, W.
Welkins, F. C.


Gallacher, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watson, W. McL.


Gardner, B. W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Westwood, J.


Garro Jones, G. M.
McGhee, H. G.
White, H. Graham


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McGovern, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
MacLaren, A.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gibbins, J.
Maclean, N.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Mander, G. le M.



Grenfell, D. R
Marshall, F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Maxton, J.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson.




NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Fleming, E. L.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsay and Otley)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gledhill, G.
Petherick, M.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Pilkington, R.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cower, Sir R. V.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Porritt, R. W.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Procter, Major H. A.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Radford, E. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsbotham, H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Bernays, R. H.
Hambro, A. V.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Hannah, I. C.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Boulton, W. W.
Harbord, A.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hepworth, J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Higgs, W. F.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Rowlands, G.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Holdsworth, H.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bull, B. B.
Holmes, J. S.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Butcher, H. W.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Salmon, Sir I.


Butler, R. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Salt, E. W.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hunter, T.
Savery, Sir Servington


Cary, R. A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Simmonds, O. E.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Channon, H.
Keeling, E. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Kimball, L.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Latham, Sir P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Storey, S.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Levy, T.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Liddall, W. S.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Lindsay, K. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Little, Sir E. Graham.
Sutcliffe, H.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lloyd, G. W.
Tate, Mavis C.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Cross, R. H.
Loftus, P. C.
Train, Sir J.


Crossley, A. C.
Lyons, A. M.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Cruddas, Col. B.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Culverwell, C. T.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Davidson, Viscountess
McCorquodale, M. S.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Dawson, Sir P.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


De Chair, S. S.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


De la Bère, R.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macquisten, F. A.
Warrender, Sir V.


Denville, Alfred
Magnay, T.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Markham, S. F.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Dunglass, Lord
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Eastwood, J. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Ellis, Sir G.
Moreing, A. C.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Emery, J. F.
Morgan, R. H.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Errington, E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)



Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Munro, P.
Captain Dugdale and Major


Everard, W. L.
Nall, Sir J.
Herbert.

Original Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £85,664, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 110.

Division No. 127.]
AYES.
[8.18 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Atholl, Duchess of
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Barrie, Sir C. C.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Baxter, A. Beverley




Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Petherick, M.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Pilkington, R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Greens, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Bernays, R. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Porritt, R. W.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Grimston, R. V.
Procter, Major H. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Radford, E. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Hambro, A. V.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hannah, I. C.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Harbord, A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hepworth, J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bull, B. B.
Higgs, W. F.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Butcher, H. W.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Butler, R. A.
Holdsworth, H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Rowlands, G.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Cary, R. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hunter, T.
Salmon, Sir I.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Salt, E. W.


Channon, H.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Keeling, E. H.
Savery, Sir Servington


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Scott, Lord William


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Kimball, L.
Simmonds, O. E.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Latham, Sir P.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W D.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Levy, T.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Liddall, W. S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Little, Sir E. Graham.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lloyd, G. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Storey, S.


Cross, R. H.
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crossley, A. C.
Lyons, A. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cruddas, Col. B.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Sutcliffe, H.


Culverwell, C. T.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Davidson, Viscountess
McCorquodale, M. S.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Dawson, Sir P.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Train, Sir J.


De Chair, S. S.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F
Tree, A. R. L. F.


De la Bère, R.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macquisten, F. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Denville, Alfred
Magnay, T.
Wakefield, W. W.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Markham, S. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dunglass, Lord
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Eastwood, J. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Ellis, Sir G.
Moreing, A. C.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Emery, J. F.
Morgan, R. H.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Errington, E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Everard, W. L.
Munro, P.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Fleming, E. L.
Nall, Sir J.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.



Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Parkins, W. R. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gledhill, G.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Captain Dugdale and Major Herbert.




NOES.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Daggar, G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Gibbins, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Davits, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Day, H.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)


Benson, G.
Dobbie, W.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Bevan, A.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Grenfell, D. R.


Bromfield, W.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Buchanan, G.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Burke, W. A.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Charleton, H. C.
Frankel, D.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Gallacher, W.
Hayday, A.


Cocks, F. S.
Gardner, B. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Cove, W. G.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)







Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
MacLaren, A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Hicks, E. G.
Maclean, N.
Sexton, T. M.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Shinwell, E.


Hopkin, D.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Simpson, F. B.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Mander, G. le M.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Marshall, F.
Stephen, C.


John, W.
Mathers, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Maxton, J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Milner, Major J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Kelly, W. T.
Montague, F.
Thurtle, E.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Tinker, J. J.


Kirby, B. V.
Muff, G.
Tomlinson, G.


Lathan, G.
Oliver, G. H.
Watkins, F. C


Lawson, J. J.
Owen, Major G.
Watson, W. McL.


Lee, F.
Parkinson, J. A.
Westwood, J.


Leslie, J. R.
Pearson, A.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Logan, D. G.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Lunn, W.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


McEntee, V. La T.
Ritson, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


McGhee, H. G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)



McGovern, J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £85,664, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special Grants and Payments, including Grants in Aid; and Sundry Services arising out of the War.

FOREIGN OFFICE.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the League of Nations and for other expenses in connection therewith, including United Kingdom Representation before the Permanent Court of International Justice, and for a Grant in Aid of the Expenses of the Settlement of Assyrians of Iraq.

CLASS IV.

BROADCASTING.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £360,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for a Grant to the British Broadcasting Corporation.

8.27 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): I think I ought to say at once that, of

this sum of £360,000, £50,000 is a purely automatic increase. Under the arrangement approved by the House, three-quarters of the net licence revenue goes to the British Broadcasting Corporation. We expect that by the end of the present month no fewer than 8,540,000 licences will have been issued, whereas we only expected, when we were drawing up the Estimate, that 8,400,000 listeners would be taking out licences. This increase, therefore, is simply and solely due to the fact that more individuals in this country have taken out licences to listen.
I come now to two features, one of which is entirely new. The first is the expansion of television, which accounts for the fact that we are asking for an additional grant of £295,000; and there is also a sum of about £15,000 proposed for broadcasting news in foreign languages. This latter is quite a new service; it was not included in the original Estimates, because at that time it was not part of the policy of the Government. The sum is only a small one, because the service only began this year. I think it ought to be a source of some satisfaction to us all in this country that we are the first country in the world to have a public television service by which our people can get television in their homes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Some of our people."] I suggest that hon. Members will do well to take pride in what has been done in this country, because we are ahead of other countries. When it is suggested that we only get television in certain cases, I can only say that in other countries they are not getting it at all. It has been found by the Television Advisory Committee that further experiments


will be necessary before any recommendations can be made with a view to its extension to other parts of the country, but that is merely a scientific inquiry.
I think the Committee would like me to pay a tribute to the brilliant achievements of those scientists who have made this wonderful discovery possible, and congratulations are also due to the British Broadcasting Corporation and to their engineers for bringing it into working order. I should be ungrateful if I did not also express gratitude on behalf of the Government to the Television Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Selsdon, and for the valuable help and advice in scientific matters that has been given by Sir Frank Smith, the vice-chairman of the committee.
The additional sum required for television is provided in a simple way. It is proposed that 8 per cent. of the net licence revenue should in future go to the B.B.C. to help them with this additional work. Television has only lately been started, and the cost has undoubtedly been very heavy. Only this week I visited the Alexandra Palace to see the latest developments, and it is quite obvious that not only have they been put to great expense, but that considerable further expenditure is needed if they are to have the necessary accommodation, studios and so on, to enable them efficiently to carry on this service for the public. I should like to announce, to those who have not yet heard it, that the television service will soon—I think next month—be extended by giving a programme on Sundays from 9.5 to 10.5, and an addition of half-an-hour is to be made to the evening programme.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is that 9.5 in the morning?

Major Tryon: No, it is 9·5 in the evening, so the hon. Member will not be disturbed.

Mr. Griffiths: I get up on Sunday mornings all right.

Major Tryon: As I have already said, the studio accommodation is being improved, and, when that is finished, it will be possible to add to the length of time for which television will be given on Sundays and in the evening.
To come now to an important point, the technical standard of transmission has

been stabilised for three years. That will give security to the purchasers of sets, and will be an encouragement to those who make them to produce more and to produce more cheaply. I hope the Committee will support this grant to foster the growth and development of an infant industry in which at the present time we are leading the world, and in which, I am sure, everyone would like us to maintain the lead which we at present hold.
I come now to the comparatively small but very important grant for broadcasting news in foreign languages. That is a new service. It has only been going on during the present year, but on 16th February the House unanimously recognised the advantages of "the widespread dissemination of straightforward information and news." Then the question arises as to who is to send out this news. The choice of the British Broadcasting Corporation for this purpose received support from all parts of this House. I have carefully gone through the list and I have found that the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) supported this proposal. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), who has rendered so much help to the British Broadcasting Corporation and takes such a great interest in it, also supported the proposal, and tributes to the impartiality of the British Broadcasting Corporation were paid by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), who has done a great deal to help them by his skill and knowledge in connection with Arabic broadcasts. Finally, the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. H. Nicolson) said:
The news bulletin of the British Broadcasting Corporation is the most impartial statement of fact that has ever been produced in any country, and that being so it gives us an enormous advantage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1938; col. 1933, Vol. 331.]
I think there has been some misunderstanding on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) in connection with this. He said, on 16th February:
On the Address I raised the question of broadcasting in German, Italian and other languages, and I understood from the Postmaster-General that this was to be done.
As a matter of fact, I never mentioned German or Italian. What I said was:


The Government have been considering for some time the question of broadcasts in foreign languages. It is a delicate matter involving both questions of policy and problems of equipment. We have been working at it for some time, and before the right hon. Gentleman who spoke first raised the subject, the Government had already decided to make broadcasts in foreign languages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1937; col. 501, Vol. 328.]
On 22nd December, in an answer to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General said:
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated on the 1st November, the possibility of transmissions in other languages is not excluded; but provision is first being made for the needs which have been most strongly felt."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd December, 1937; col. 1998, Vol. 330.]

Mr. Herbert Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that in the statement he made on the Address he made no limitation in regard to languages, but there was subsequently a limitation made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Committee will be interested to know why that subsequent limitation was made.

Major Tryon: The point I am making is that I made no such statement. The Arabic service is already in operation, and on the night of the 14th the British Broadcasting Corporation will start a service in Spanish and Portuguese, which will be welcomed in South America. The Arabic service can be received over a wide area covering a population of 40,000,000, and the Spanish and Portuguese services will cover an even larger population, amounting, in fact, to 105,000,000. On these foreign language broadcasts, the British Broadcasting Corporation give, as I know the right hon. Gentleman and the House would wish, straight news, and not propaganda. The Arabic broadcasts have been subjected to some comments. We are all grateful to those who have made suggestions for improving them. I believe that the difficulties have now been met, and that the broadcasts are going forward in a satisfactory manner.
With reference to broadcasts in other languages, the position is quite simple. The British Broadcasting Corporation have to use their existing Empire transmitters for these services. It is essential that the Empire service should not be interfered with, and, therefore, the time available is very limited; but they have

ordered two additional high-power transmitters, which they hope will be in use early next year. These new transmitters will enable them to extend the hours of the foreign language services without interfering with the Empire service. The point made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, ought to be appreciated. He said on 1st November:
In this new service the Corporation will have the same full responsibilities and duties as are set forth in the Charter of the Corporation in relation to their existing services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1ST November, 1937; col. 674, Vol. 328.]
I hope the Committee will grant help to these two new services. The television service, as I have said, is one in which we lead the world, and we want to keep ahead of the world. In regard to foreign broadcasts, the transmission of good, straightforward news to other parts of the world is a contribution towards good will among the nations and world peace. I may be a little idealistic in the matter—

Mr. Gallacher: Idealistic!

Major Tryon: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to state my case.

Mr. Gallacher: I like your ideals.

Major Tryon: I am trying to promote good will, which I commend to the Communist party. I will devote myself to those hon. Members who, I believe, want to promote good will. In an uncertain world, it may be a contribution to the peace of the world if news goes out as true as we can make it and honestly put forward. Perhaps other nations will look to see what news is coming from this country before they try to create ill-feeling. I believe that this is a contribution to peace, and as such I recommend it to the Committee.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
The developments in activity indicated in these Supplementary Estimates are, as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, in two parts. One is automatic, and, therefore, need not concern the Committee, because it is a pure matter of arithmetic. The other indicates developments in policy on the part of the British Broadcasting Corporation, after consultation, and with the concurrence of the Postmaster-General. The first part, with


regard to television, raises fewer issues of wide public policy. Nevertheless there are points on which I wish to have information. We are all proud that this great socialised service of broadcasting, conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation, with no capital, no interest, no capitalistic shareholders, no capitalist directors—it is a wonder that it goes on at all, having regard to the views of hon. Members opposite—this miracle of the world, that has no capitalistic basis at all, we are all proud that it should be, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the most progressive in the world so far as the provision of television is concerned. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall quote this unique tribute from him to a socialised service, in order that the country may know how good these services are. But we are not too happy over the fact that television is still denied to a large proportion of the population. I quite agree that in the initial stages of a new technical invention of this kind, it is bound to be more expensive than it will be later on.
We would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether, in making this particular grant to the British Broadcasting Corporation, any conditions have been made and any encouragement has been given by the Postmaster-General to the end that the British Broadcasting Corporation, in conjunction with manufacturers, will get the price of television sets down as early, and to as great an extent, as possible? It is certainly a miraculous invention when one can—as I have done and have been very pleased to do—go to Alexandra Palace and be seen through brick walls, omnibuses and goodness knows what, have plans of London's green belt on show and the like, which can be seen at a considerable distance, at the same time as the voice is heard. In this very wonderful age we seem to be able to do everything except feed the people of the country. But it is an amazing invention and it has enormous possibilities.
We would like to know whether, in making this substantial grant to the British Broadcasting Corporation, about which we do not complain in itself, any particular effort has been made by the Postmaster-General to secure that the price of sets shall come down and that the service shall be made more readily available to persons of limited means;

whether the Department and the Corporation are aiming at getting television placed upon such a basis in the long run that a television service will be within the means of working-class households as the broadcasting service itself is at the present time. I shall be glad if information can be given to the Committee upon that point.
There is another point I should like to raise, though I am not sure of my facts, and perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be good enough to tell me if I go wrong. I rather gather that at the moment this service is to a great extent confined to London and the Home Counties as far as distribution and availability are concerned. I am a London Member of Parliament, but I speak for all my hon. Friends in these matters. I do not think that it is right, although perhaps it is inevitable that the capital City with its huge population should be the commencing point, that, in a national body and a service of this kind, London should monopolise this new development in television. I would like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to give us some indication as to whether, in the light of the particular Vote we are now discussing, it is possible for him to make early arrangements whereby the television service will at any rate be available from the larger centres of the country—in the provinces, in Wales and in Scotland. Can he say how soon he hopes that a national television service will be available to all parts of the country? Television has now existed for some time, and hon. Members from areas outside London have a right to ask that this service shall be made available at a reasonably early date to other parts of the country as well.
I pass to the other part of the Supplementary Estimate, which, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has indicated, opens up a new broadcasting service, and, therefore, it is natural and right that the Committee should take a wide review of this new service and that we should discuss whether it has been started upon the right basis, and also whether the service which this £15,000 inaugurates is contemplated on a sufficiently wide and comprehensive basis. That is the real issue of policy which is before the Committee at the present time. The issue inevitably is a pretty wide issue. It raises wide considerations of policy as to what should


be done with this £15,000 which inaugurates a new and important service as far as the British Broadcasting Corporation is concerned.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has taken pride—and it is proper that he should take pride—in the tributes that have been paid from various quarters of the House, and in which I myself have joined, as to the general fairness and impartiality of news disseminated by the British Broadcasting Corporation. We all complain about some particular thing now and again, and not only we, but hon. Gentlemen opposite do so from time to time. Sometimes I feel that the complaints and criticisms are legitimate, but, broadly speaking, I feel some British pride in the fact that the news disseminated by the British Broadcasting Corporation is straight, that it is, generally speaking, a fair summary of the news of the day, and that at any rate the staff of the News Editor's department of the British Broadcasting Corporation seek to give a fair and impartial presentation of the happenings of the day. Even when sometimes we are critical of it the fault may not necessarily rest with the British Broadcasting Corporation itself. It may conceivably rest upon the commercial agencies which supply the news. Even though they are private undertakings, the agencies, at any rate in the supply of news, are in the large proportion of cases pretty fair in its presentation. It is when the sub-editors get hold of it in the news rooms of the newspapers that things happen and it gets a little out of focus now and again according to the outlook and opinion of the newspapers concerned.
This is the issue with which the Committee are faced. We are living in an age when frontiers have been broken down to a great extent by scientific invention. It is unfortunate that some of these scientific inventions, instead of leading to the greater amity and friendship of international life, have also led to these greater dangers in the relations between nations, notably in the air. But if this development whereby one can sit at one's own fireside and listen to speeches from all parts of the world, to lectures, concerts, and to the dissemination of news is to be really valuable to the world, it ought to be used not only by our own country, but by all countries as a means of keeping the peoples of all the nations of

the world informed as to what is happening in the countries of the world. In so far as we go in for broadcasts of British news in foreign languages, I would sooner it be done in the spirit of making knowledge, and of giving information and news.
It may be that in that news there may be reports of speeches which express opinions, but that is a matter of fact and is really news. It should be done in the spirit of making knowledge of what is happening in this country by giving the actual facts of current British declarations of opinion on one side, the other side and the third side—doing it in the spirit of making knowledge and information available rather than as an action of retaliation or spite against any other nation in the world. It is important that other countries should understand that in so far as this is done—I would like this to be understood, and I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman entirely agrees with that view—and as far as the Government and, I think, the Opposition are concerned, we want it done in that spirit, and not as a means of carrying on an international wrangle and so doing something because somebody else does something.
It may not have been the Government's fault entirely, but annoying as the Italian broadcasts were, preposterous as were a large proportion of the statements in that broadcast, irritating as they were to our people, and foolish as they were from the point of view of developing good international relations, I was sorry that the broadcast in Arabic was handled in such a way as to give the impression to people outside this House that it was a conscious and deliberate retaliation on the Italian Government. That was a pity. It is the wrong spirit in which to do it. It should have been done as an ordinary act of administration, as a desire that British happenings, British news and British views, should be made available to the Arab-speaking peoples of the world and not as a means of retaliating on the Italian Government for having done things which we did not like. It may be that those who decided to broadcast in Arabic considered it would be a useful corrective to the mischievous broadcast from another source, but it is important that the spirit of the thing should be right, and that the world should realise that we are not engaged


in a world-wide debate of abuse and retaliation, that we are doing it without any excitement, without any demonstration, in no spirit of spite in the least. The world should realise that we are merely exercising, as a matter of administration, the right to translate into other languages the substance of the services already available to the British public. The spirit in which this broadcast is done is as important as the substance of the broadcast.
There have been numerous commentaries about this broadcast. I cannot judge whether they are justified or not. It is said that the Arabs do not like our broadcast, that it is dull, and that in the cafés in the Near East the British story is rather set aside in favour of the broadcast of other countries. Perhaps the Postmaster-General will give us some further information on that point. We do not want to make British broadcast cheap; we want them to be effective and to uphold a proper standard of dignity. I am not sure whether Arabic was the most urgent language for this first broadcast, but no doubt the Government have good reasons for it. I know that there has been trouble in the Near East, and when I remember the Government's record I do not wonder at it. There may have been good reasons for a first broadcast in Arabic, but I should have thought that some Continental languages were equally urgent from this point of view. Spanish appears to have been the next. I do not know the reason.

Major Tryon: South America.

Mr. H. Morrison: If it was South America and not Spain, I can understand it. There are commercial reasons why Spanish America should know British opinions and facts. When it was first announced I wondered whether it was with the idea that Spaniards on both sides might be made fully aware of the proceedings of the Non-Intervention Committee and the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to Spain, a subject upon which they would be just as mystified as we are. I thought the decision to give priority to Spanish might have had some relationship to the Spanish civil war, but I gather that it is primarily connected with British commercial and economic interests in Spanish-speaking South America.
The decision to broadcast in Portuguese, I suppose, followed on that of the Spanish

decision. I should like to know whether the idea was that the Portuguese might be made aware that in the British view their attitude towards the Non-Intervention Committee has been troublesome from time to time. But I should have thought that the first claim on this service ought to be the dissemination, not the propaganda, of British news in German and Italian. I stress this view, not because I want us to engage in a spiteful and destructive propaganda at the expense of Governments for which I have the most profound dislike, but because I think the great tragedy in Europe to-day is the cutting off of the German and Italian people from authentic knowledge of what is happening in the world outside. It is most unfortunate for them, and really unfortunate for us, because the more these people know what is happening in Great Britain, the more they know current opinion and leading British personalities, the more they know of our desire to live at peace with all peoples of the world, the greater the contribution to the peace of the world.
I hope the Postmaster-General will give us an assurance that German and Italian broadcasts will not be debarred in any new development as soon as it is technically possible. I do not want to be offensive, but I beg him not to evade the issue. Let us be told. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is on the Government Front Bench and obviously it is proper that the Foreign Office should be consulted on such a matter as this, although it is not desirable that they should figure too prominently. But if there is any intention on the part of the Government to delay the dissemination of news in German and Italian for any reasons of State policy, then with great respect, we ought to know them. The Government should tell us in order that the issue may be debated. If these broadcasts are undertaken I hope it will be as a matter of current administration, without fuss and without asking anyone's leave.
In carrying through the new service which is covered by this Vote, I hope that the Government do not intend to ask the permission of the German and Italian Governments for this news to be disseminated in the German and Italian languages. If they do that, they will immediately lift the question from the sphere of current administration and ordinary right into the realm of high


policy. Directly that happened, it would be difficult for the Government to carry through the service if they had not the concurrence of the Governments of those countries, unless they were willing, as I should be disposed to be, to do it whatever might be the opinions of the German and Italian Governments. I consider that it would not be wise to open negotiations which would lift the matter out of current British administrative right and place it within the realm of high policy, thus involving more or less acute questions of international relationships.
Germany, Italy and Soviet Russia have broadcast in the English language not only news but, from time to time, direct propaganda of a more or less political character, calculated to influence foreign opinion in ways convenient to, or desired by those Governments. I do not think that sort of thing is desirable. It is undesirable that any Government should use its broadcasting stations for the purpose of, so to speak, seducing the opinion of the nationals of other countries. But we have not made a fuss about that. We have a good British public; it is led up the garden now and again by British politicians, but it is not so easily led up the garden by foreign politicians, except in the light of more recent events. We do not worry too much about those broadcasts, because the British public is a solid public and has a good deal of self-reliance and capacity for thought. The dictators of either colour may storm and rave and try to throw people off their feet by broadcast propaganda, but on the whole, so far at any rate, that propaganda has not unduly disturbed any of us who hold responsible positions in British public life.
I do not want propaganda to be broadcast from this country, and we should not do it by way of retaliation; but inasmuch as those countries have done it without asking the leave of the British Government, although I do not make any great complaint about that, I maintain that it would be monstrous if the British Government, through the Foreign Office or otherwise, were to ask the permission of foreign Governments before disseminating "straight" British news in the languages of other countries. I beg the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, or, if necessary, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to

give us an assurance on that matter. I believe that what hon. Members in all parts of the Committee want is that there shall be dissemination of news in these important foreign languages, not as an act against any other Government or people, but as a means of making available to the people of other countries sound and accurate knowledge of what is happening in this country.
I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will reconsider the languages in which the broadcasts now take place. If he comes to the conclusion that he cannot move in that matter, I suggest he should consider whether broadcasts in one or two additional languages such as I have indicated could not be made from the existing transmitter by means of a modification of arrangements there. If that is impossible, will he at any rate give the Committee an assurance that the additional transmitters, which should be adequate for their purpose, will be speeded up in order that the thing may happen which I think most of us want to happen, namely, that all the peoples using the principal languages of the world shall find it possible, as far as we are concerned, to know by wireless what is happening within these shores.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: I wish to support the Vote for the extension of these new services, which I think are welcomed by all hon. Members; but after listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), I am so much in agreement with what he has said that if he presses his Amendment, I shall find myself in some difficulty as to which way I should go. I think it is generally agreed by all hon. Members that it is very satisfactory that, when we discuss questions of the financing of the British Broadcasting Corporation, we proceed upon principles which have been laid down by various bodies which have examined the finances of the Corporation, and that there are no differences of principle as to the way in which the finance should be supplied. It is now a well-established principle that the licence revenue should be retained by the Corporation until such time as there is an adequate and sufficient service in all branches of its activities.
However, the question of the financing of television raises a somewhat difficult


point, for when the financing of the broadcasting system was agreed to and the licence fee was determined, there was no question of the fees having to carry the charge for television. That makes it all the more important that the cost of television should be reduced and that television should be brought within the range of a very much larger number of people than those to whom it is available at present. I cannot help feeling that if the television service is to be limited to the comparatively small number of people who have the privilege of enjoying it at the present time, we may have to consider a new principle of finance which will not put that charge upon those who have no possibility or prospect of enjoying television, at all events, in their own homes. With that reservation in our minds—and I hope it will disappear as quickly as may be—I gather that the hon. Members will support the financing of television, for the time being, from this source. All of us take pride in the development of the television service. We admire and pay tribute to the technicians and scientists who have developed it, and we hope that they will soon be able to bring it within the range of a larger number of people. I do not know whether my right hon. and gallant Friend has any idea of the number of people who enjoy the television service in their own homes at the present time, or whether indeed there is any means of getting that information; but if it is possible, I think hon. Members would like to hear what is the estimated number.
I pass to the consideration of the smaller grant for broadcasting in foreign languages. I do not think there can be any question about the right of this country to broadcast in any language in which it is minded to broadcast. The day has long since past when that right could be questioned. In early days, when our own Empire broadcasting service was in its infancy, a German broadcast in English followed the course of the sun round the British Empire. It was, of course, an excellent programme in various ways; it was followed up by questionnaires and was carried out with great thoroughness. As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the Italians and the Russians and, I may add, the Japanese, have also sent their broadcast waves in English right round the British Empire.

Therefore, I do not think there is any occasion to be concerned about our right to broadcast in whatever language we please, provided we can overcome the technical difficulties and that, I believe, is well within our power.
No doubt, those responsible for coming to a decision upon these developments will have some regard to the fact that the British language is probably the most widely-spoken language in the world, and that it might almost be considered unnecessary to broadcast in the language of certain other countries. But it is important that British policy, British history and British character should be made known as widely as possible to the common people of all countries. We should not enter into anything of a polemical nature. If there is broadcasting by others which seems to us bombastic and militaristic, we, for ourselves, should stress those qualities to which we attach the greatest importance. We should be modest rather than bombastic, and express our desire for peace. If brutal things are being broadcast by others, the most effective reply for us to make, is to broadcast our desire for mercy and justice.
These inventions of television and broadcasting are two of the most important items in the scientific development of the last 25 years, which in the aggregate amount almost to a second creation. The rapidity of the transmission of news and of the human voice, the expedited means of communication of all kinds, amount in effect to a second creation brought about within the present century. It is lamentable that the work of science which has, up to now, been directed to bringing people closer together and making it possible for them to live the policy of the good neighbour, should be thwarted and frustrated, as it has been, by political differences and intolerance of one kind and another. Everyone in this Committee must hope that, through the medium of the wireless, we may send forth such a message as will undo the mischief which has been done, and defeat those human activities which tend to destroy and frustrate the beneficent effects of scientific development.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. De la Bère: I rise not to oppose the increase proposed in this Estimate, but to draw attention to certain facts.


The British Broadcasting Corporation is well-known throughout the world, but there are certain aspects of its working which we are entitled to consider when we are dealing with this grant of £360,000 by which it is proposed to increase the amount allotted for television. I feel that the British Broadcasting Corporation has not in the past been as free from bias as many hon. Members would wish it to be. We know the difficulties that beset its work, but the fact remains that at times in the news bulletins we get the most astounding statements dealing with private individuals.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now going into something which cannot be discussed on this Vote. There are two new services which can be discussed, but the only other item is concerned with a very small amount in connection with the increase in the number of licences. That does not entitle hon. Members to go into the general administration and working of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. De la Bère: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Dennis, and I realise the truth of what you have said. I wish to point out, however, that these licences to-day provide for those in London and Greater London, facilities as regards television which are denied to residents in other parts of the country. The radius of television at present is not more than 50 or 70 miles, and if this grant is to be made by the Committee, I submit that provision ought to be made for people in all parts of the country to enjoy the same facilities as those at present enjoyed only by people in London and Greater London. When the 10s. fee was fixed originally these facilities for television were not in contemplation. I welcome the Postmaster-General's statement that this country is forging ahead of all other nations in this respect, but it seems to me that all parts of the country should share these facilities which are now confined to London.
While desiring to enjoy those facilities I feel that the people of the country generally would wish to know a little more about what provision is to be made in future for television in places of amusement. Is the British Broadcasting Corporation to control completely television in places of amusement throughout the

country? It seems to me that in television there is a power far in excess of what any of us here can visualise. It may be that it will change the whole nature of things. If this power is to remain in the very autocratic hands in which it is now held, we should seriously consider whether some strong safeguards are not required in regard to the use to be made of it. You have already called me to Order, Sir Dennis, and I shall bear in mind what you have said, but I wish to stress the desirability of safeguards in connection with the use of this enormous power which is a menace to the liberty of the individual.
At Question Time I have alluded to the bud of liberty which opened in an English spring. That bud has not much hope of opening in the next few years unless the faithful Commons of this country stand to arms and see that no infringement of the liberty of this country is in any way acquiesced in by this House of Commons. We are the custodians of liberty in this country, and we should not be fainthearted or lacking in the courage to get up and say so. The love of liberty is born in an Englishman, and Englishmen will fight for that liberty on every possible occasion; and if this extension of television is going to do anything to curtail our liberties I hope that all Members, irrespective of party, will offer resistance and will ask that the Charter which has been given to the B.B.C. should be revised. I know that the Board of Governors are admirable and estimable people, and socially one has nothing but respect for them. At the same time, they have a very grave responsibility, especially the chairman, who in his position should do all he can to see that no one individual at the B.B.C. should do anything against the best traditions of freedom and liberty in this country.
I should like to say one word on broadcasting in foreign languages. I do not know what programme will be laid down, but it does seem that those who have considerable knowledge of this matter are often denied any facilities for expressing their views to the Governors or of getting any notice taken of reasonable requests which they may make. Surely if we do it in the correct way we are all entitled—even the hon. Member for Evesham—to our views, and we should be permitted to put those views


forward to the Governors, as long as it is done with moderation and respect. But they should not simply be cast on one side. The views of Members are entitled to some consideration, and I feel that in the past we have not always had that. We have been told from time to time that it is not possible to have a close liaison between the House of Commons and the B.B.C. The Postmaster-General recently informed me, in answer to a question, that the idea of a liaison officer between the House of Commons—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not in order now.

Mr. De la Bère: I bow once again to your Ruling, but, as I said before, the question of broadcasting in foreign languages is all-important. After all, we shall be judged in all parts of the world on what is said in these broadcasts, and we should get the very best imagination, the very best brains, the very best elements in industry and in the House of Commons to express their views, so that all nations in the world shall feel, what they have always felt up to now, a real respect for the British nation.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I am sure I shall be expressing the views of Members on all sides when I congratulate the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) on getting the opportunity for which he has so long sought at question time of putting the B.B.C. in its place. When the hon. Member was opening his speech and referred to the new television service, which he said was for all the people, I checked him and said "some of the people." I feel that the Provinces have a legitimate grievance against the B.B.C., and not only in this matter. Ordinary broadcasting has now reached a very high stage of technical perfection, but it is only in the last year or two that we have had a Welsh station. Yet Wales has a language and a culture which are very much older than the English, and for years we appealed in vain to the B.B.C. for a special station of our own. At last we have it, and we shall be voting money to-night to which the whole people will be contributing, and we are entitled to ask that as soon as it is possible—we know that the experimental stage should be conducted in London—the television service shall be made available for the people all over the country. I notice the

Minister of Labour in his place. I should like the B.B.C. if it were possible, to televise the condition in which some of our people live. [An HON. MEMBER: "The trading estates."] Yes, the trading estates, where there are more factories than workers. But this marvellous invention is one which opens tremendous possibilities, and we are invited to ask that the people of Wales, of Scotland, the Midlands and the North shall get a better service from the B.B.C. than we have had up till now.
May I say one word in support of what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) said in an admirable speech, which won support from all sides of the Committee, on the subject of broadcasting in foreign languages. I recollect an experience which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) and I had some years ago when we went to a foreign country and were entertained by Government representatives there. They were very anxious to find out from us what was our reaction to the events that had taken place in that country, and one man with whom we talked—he could speak English, had lived in Wales and taught in one of our Welsh Universities—told us that two or three weeks before he had met and entertained an English business man who had been going to that country for 25 or 30 years on business. This professor was very anxious to find out what this business man thought about the recent developments in that country, and he replied: "If I were asked to advise your country at this stage I would say that things are becoming dangerous for you and for the world, and I would give you two pieces of advice. The first is to stop talking about your national honour, and the second is to learn to laugh at yourselves." That advice represents some of the best features in the British character. We do not blow our own trumpets and talk about national honour. In some countries that we know young men and women are being trained and taught to believe that they have lost their national honour, and that they have to fight, physically, mentally and spiritually, to regain it. That is the lesson they are taught in their broadcasts and in their newspapers—that they lost their national honour in the last War and they must regain it. That is the kind of propaganda which has created the


spiritual rearmament that is going on in Europe, of which these other rearmaments are merely the expression.
This new service, for which we are voting, I believe, the first sum in this Committee to-night, can be the beginning of a day on which Britain enters this war on the air, this war of poison and of propaganda, or it can be the beginning of a day on which we are at any rate sending a breath of fresh air to every country on the earth. I wish to offer support to the sentiments that have been so well expressed by the right hon. Member for South Hackney. We have a tremendous responsibility, and we must use it, not in order to add to the poison and hatred in Europe, but, speaking from England to the people of Germany and Italy, who are denied opportunities of learning what is happening in their own countries—[AN HON. MEMBER: "And Russia."]—Yes, and Russia too, all over the world—let us use this great opportunity, this great instrument, to recover the freedom which is rapidly being lost in the world. I hope that it is in that spirit that we may use this tremendous new weapon which this Committee is voting to the British Broadcasting Corporation to-night.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Simmonds: I listened with the greatest interest to the remarks of the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) on this subject of foreign broadcasts. He is undoubtedly right when he says that the spirit which is behind these broadcasts is of paramount importance, and I agree entirely with him when he says that we must broadcast news and not propaganda, but when he came to speak about broadcasting in the German and Italian languages, I could not follow him quite so closely. Perhaps I did not fully understand his point, but I fear that he wanted the British Broadcasting Corporation here and now, or at any rate in the very near future, to show, by practical demonstration, their undoubted right to broadcast in any language which they might please to use. It may be desirable at some time that that right should be demonstrated, but I fancy that there is a right time and a wrong time at which to do all things, and for my own part I should, unless we have already broadcast in

German and Italian, regret it very greatly if the British Broadcasting Corporation took the opportunity in the early future to do something which would be regarded by the heads of those countries as something of a challenge to them.

Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that the hon. Member thinks that before we disseminate in these languages, we should get the necessary permission from somebody, but I said nothing about any challenge to anybody. I asked for it to be done in the proper spirit and as a matter of ordinary demonstration, not dramatically or by way of challenge to anybody in the world. The hon. Member is arguing that we should not do something because, apparently, he apprehends that somebody might not be pleased with it unless we first got permission. Let him argue his point of view, but he has no right to put it on me that I argued that I wanted to do this merely as a matter of spite and by way of challenge to some other country.

Mr. Simmonds: If the right hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of reading to-morrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT what I have already said he will see that he has entirely misinterpreted my observations. I did not suggest in any way that he wanted to challenge anybody. My point was that it may be necessary at some time to demonstrate the right of anybody broadcasting from anywhere in the British Empire to broadcast in any language which that broadcast may please to use. That may be necessary, but the point that I was making was that there are right times and wrong times at which to demonstrate a right, and I would respectfully suggest that if we are endeavouring to reach some understanding with countries which view these matters from very different standpoints from those which we ourselves adopt, and which we know have very definite idiosyncrasies in regard to this matter, it might be better that we should avoid, if we have not already broadcast in German and in Italian, commencing to broadcast in these languages at a time when a challenge might have unfortunate results for the negotiations which, from every side of the House, we are so anxious to see succeed.
I turn from that to the question of television, and I would like to thank my right hon. and gallant Friend the Postmaster-


General for the interest that he has taken in this new and vast development, and for his success in persuading his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find a sum of £300,000 towards this service. As has been observed already, the service as yet is not well developed, either geographically or technically. If one compares the programmes that are broadcast with those that are televised, it is clear that the B.B.C. are not using, for instance, their most expensive artists for television. That means to say that, compared with the broadcast programmes, television has unfortunately an air of amateurism about it at present. I believe that that is one reason why more television receivers have not been sold, in addition to the fact, already mentioned, of their relatively high cost. But if we are not selling television receivers because the programmes are not so good as the broadcast programmes, and if, on the other hand, the programmes are not so good on account of the fact that there are not so many receivers, then clearly we are in a vicious circle, from which we need some stroke to release us; and I am sincerely hopeful that this £300,000 will be the necessary stroke.
I join with hon. Members opposite in appealing to my right hon. and gallant Friend for regional development of television. In Birmingham, part of which I have the honour to represent, we have a million souls, possibly a million and a half with the suburbs, in a very small area, and as the largest area in this country with so high a congestion of population, and with all the Midland cities around, I would like to make a very special appeal that a Birmingham centre for television should be opened as early as possible. Can my right hon. and gallant Friend give the Committee any idea when these regional stations may be opened?
Another point that I would like to make in regard to television is this: At the moment there appears to be no correlation between the broadcast programmes and the television programmes. That may be because television is young and the hours of television, at any rate in the evenings, are short, but it so happens that the television programmes starting at 9 o'clock and due to end at 10 usually end, when I look at them, between 10.20 and 10.25, which means to say that those who are

using their television sets can listen to neither the 9 o'clock nor the 10 o'clock news on the broadcast service. I think it is undesirable that news programmes on both stations should cut across the television hour, and if my right hon. and gallant Friend could bring that point to the notice of the authorities as they develop their television programmes, I think it would be greatly appreciated.
We are promised a development of television through an extension of hours. When they are extended I hope that the Broadcasting Corporation will take some pains to ascertain whether those who own television sets can use them at the hours when programmes are being televised. It is possible to waste a vast sum of money to televise programmes at hours when receivers are not in use. The sum that has been set aside for television is an extra £310,000, or 8 per cent. more of the licence fee, that is, an increase from 75 to 83 per cent. I doubt whether that sum is enough. In my doubts I am speaking not only as a representative of my constituents, but as chairman of the Listeners' League, which is the largest organised body of listeners in this country, and has on its executive right hon. and hon. Members in all parties. We feel that a serious aspect of this matter has been brought to the attention of this Committee and the Government by the B.B.C. In their annual report on this subject it draws attention on page 26 to the impossibility hitherto of building up any reserve fund in liquid form. What they say is pertinent to this addition of only 8 per cent. for so vast a service as television:
It is essential to do so"—
that is, to build up a reserve fund—
while income is stil increasing. Otherwise, the Corporation will be forced ultimately to divert to capital purposes substantial sums required for expenditure on programmes, etc., thus lowering the standard of service.
That is a fair and important warning from the Governors of the B.B.C. that unless we see that they are adequately financed, we may have a deterioration in the programmes. When we speak of deterioration in programmes, I fear that that is likely to occur where the listener least desires it, and that is in the programmes on Sunday.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member will have to raise that subject on another occasion.

Mr. Simmonds: I have no desire to proceed with that matter, but it is essential that we should adequately finance the B.B.C. in television and all new developments which we may place on their shoulders. Otherwise, we shall have a serious deterioration in the programmes.

Mr. White: The hon. Member said he was chairman of the Listeners' League. It would be interesting if we could be told how many members it has.

Mr. Simmonds: I should hesitate to use this Committee for propaganda for any body with which I am associated, but I can tell the hon. Member that there are many more thousands of members of the Listeners' League than he might imagine. At the moment a questionnaire to 1,500,000 listeners will enable us in future to tell the B.B.C. a little more of what the listeners throughout the country desire.

Mr. White: I have no idea how many listeners there are. The hon. Member made it a point in his speech.

Mr. Simmonds: I do not want to proceed any further with this matter, but if we are to discuss numbers, it is a dangerous pursuit for anybody on that bench. The B.B.C. are asking for increasing sums of money each year, and I consider it is the proper function of this Committee to draw the attention of the Postmaster-General to the scant informaion which is given to us in the B.B.C. accounts.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must raise that subject, too, on another occasion.

Mr. Simmonds: If if be your Ruling that we cannot discuss the way in which the B.B.C. account for the money we are now voting, I will content myself by saying that I will raise it on the next suitable opportunity. For the moment, I will express the hope that this money for television will be used for the development of television into a service which will give as much satisfaction to the televising public as broadcasting has done in past years.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Magnay: I want to make one or two observations on television and broadcasting which I think will be useful to the Committee. I want to make clear that I do not represent anybody in par-

ticular, except 78,000 people in my constituency. On their behalf, as well as on my own, I would like to congratulate the Postmaster-General on this new adventure in the great service for which he is responsible to the House and the nation. I would like to congratulate the B.B.C. on the work they are doing. I remember the first time I heard the late beloved King speak in the first Christmas broadcast, when I heard the hiss and the roar of Niagara Falls, heard messages to the homeland in the same common speech—

The Deputy-Chairman: I would remind the hon. Member that this Estimate is strictly limited to foreign broadcasting and television.

Mr. Magnay: I understand that. We could not have had television if we had not first had broadcasting. We all remember how the world became, as we never understood before, a whispering gallery, and now that we have television it makes this indeed an age of miracles. I remember that last year several of my constituents, my wife and I, had the good fortune to go to Broadcasting House at the kind invitation of Sir Stephen Tallents, and under the expert guidance of a son of a respected former Speaker of the House, Mr. Whitley, we saw a demonstration of television. I thought it was marvellous, and I wish we could have a station on Tyneside in Newcastle. I would also like to congratulate the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) who spoke for the Opposition. He was uncommonly reasonable to-night. I think everyone in the House was agreed when he advised that there should be no propaganda or retaliation in kind, just a plain statement of fact, but I have been wondering whether it is possible to make a plain statement of fact which would be accepted as such by any two men. Bertrand Russell, in the first chapter of his work on the elements of philosophy, states that it is impossible to get two men to agree about the descripion of a able in a room. So much depends upon he light, upon the eyes, and the angle of vision. After I have been to a football match, one of my amusements is to read the different reports of the game which are published. No two reports of the game agree. With all respect to my right hon. Friend I wonder whether it is possible to give a plain, unvarnished statement of facts which would


be accepted as such by foreigners. When he was talking about the spirit in which the messages should be sent out in various languages I could not help thinking of a letter to Rome written hundreds of years ago, and whether or not he was thinking of the text and was speaking in the spirit of it:
Be not overcome of evil, overcome evil with good.
I said "Amen" to that. I agree that messages ought to be sent out at once in German and Italian. I do not think we should have them in Welsh, because that would be too big a strain.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We have it already.

Mr. Magnay: But whatever the language, the spirit of the message should be, "Come, let us reason together." For the life of me I cannot understand why this week there should be this sudden change, as compared with last week, in the views emanating from the benches opposite. Apparently it is not possible to talk in that spirit to dictators, but it is possible to talk in that spirit to the peoples of their countries. I congratulate the Postmaster-General on the new venture and I wish him every success, which he deserves.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin: I rise to support the appeal which my right hon. Friend made to the Postmaster-General. The £295,000 which is to be spent on television is a large sum, and I desire to ask the Postmaster-General whether it is possible to spread the benefits over as many people as possible, and I would support the appeal which has already been made to him to see that the advantages of television are given to the provinces. I hope, however, that he will not yield to the blandishments of the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) to take the studio to Birmingham. I suggest that it should come to Cardiff first, because in and around Cardiff there is a higher percentage of wireless listeners than is to be found in most parts of the country. If a demonstration such as we had in the House some months ago could be given in Cardiff or any other great industrial centre, it would do much to encourage the sale of television sets. I would also support the appeal to the Postmaster-General to see whether it is possible to see that television sets become as cheap as possible. The first wireless sets were ex-

ceedingly expensive, and were available to very few people.
As regards the £15,000 to be spent on the dissemination of news to foreign countries I agree with the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay), that it must be a very difficult matter indeed to say when news is "straight" news and will not be regarded as propaganda on its reception. Still, I believe that it is possible to send out what most people would declare to be "straight" news. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Duddeston that exception could be taken to anything which fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). His point was that it ought to be possible, without asking anybody at all, to disseminate the truth, and I can hardly think that anyone in any country in Europe would object to that. I realise that there are difficulties in getting news to the Italian people. It is only with very expensive sets that broadcasts from English stations can be picked up in Italy, and there are few of those expensive sets in Italy. I should think the best way to get over that difficulty would be to set up a station, somewhere in the Mediterranean, possibly in Cyprus. With a station there it would be easy to send messages to Italy, Palestine and to Egypt.
As regards the broadcasts in Arabic, I understand that up to the present they have been confined to news. I lived in Egypt for four years, and I know how those broadcasts are received there. There are receiving sets in the cafés in various parts of Cairo, for example, and the people listen while they are sitting round sipping their coffee. We ought to sugar the pill by introducing between items of "straight" news Arabic music and other things. I think that the Egyptians, the Syrians and the Palestine Arabs would listen to Arabic music. A service of that sort, with "straight" news, would be of mutual advantage to the people who broadcast and those who listen. I agree with my right hon. Friend that there can be no doubt that we have a right, and more than a right, to send out such news, that we ought to do it; and then, indeed, we shall be doing a great service to peace and to the world.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: It is incredible to me that any one should put forward the sug-


gestion that Cardigan will be suitable for a television station when Aberdeen is available. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Hopkin) may say that in South Wales they have a higher percentage of sets than anywhere in the country, but everyone knows that in the north of Scotland the percentage of receiving sets is incomparably higher. Therefore, if the Postmaster-General wants an effective television station in the provinces, I would urge him to consider Aberdeen before any other town in the United Kingdom.
Let me say a few words about Arabic music. Such information as I have been able to obtain in regard to the Italian broadcast makes me believe that it is not entirely music that is the greatest source of attraction in those programmes. Far be it from me to recommend my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to copy in every respect the methods which I am given to understand are employed by some other countries to attract the attention of the Arab population in the Near East, but I am not convinced that music alone will effectively compete with some of the broadcasts that have taken place in recent months from other nations.
In regard to the whole question of propagandist broadcasts, there is one point to which I would refer, and I hope the Postmaster-General will be able to reassure us. We are absolutely at the beginning in this matter. We are trying a few tentative experiments, but we have not reached anything like finality, and I am not convinced that the time may not come when we shall have to use other sources apart from the purely official State sources for the propagation of British culture, views and news in the world. I will not say anything more than that. I think there is a tendency on the part of the Post Office, or there has been a tendency, to regard broadcasting as the absolute perquisite of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and not to see the vast possibilities of using other services in the world for the propagation of British culture and general British news, without any direct political propaganda.

Mr. J. Griffiths: What other services?

Mr. Boothby: There are many opportunities of getting not only British advertising but British cultural propaganda over other radio services than the purely official B.B.C. service. There is a great

deal to be said for encouraging those avenues of British culture, provided no political propaganda is used, rather than confining the whole thing rigidly in the hands of an organisation which has a very excellent service but is rigidly bureaucratic and therefore to some extent lacking in imagination. I should like the Postmaster-General to assure the Committee that in future the Government will be ready to take a large view of the whole question of British propaganda, not political propaganda, over the wireless, and that they will not take a wholly bureaucratic and rigid official view of a matter which is in its infancy and which will become in the long run of immense importance not only to this country but the world at large.

10.9 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I do not rise to ask that a television station should be installed in my constituency, but to ask the Postmaster-General a technical question. I know that the House of Commons loathes technical questions, but I am going to ask one. There has been installed, I understand, between London and Birmingham a thing called a co-axial cable, which has very great advantages from the point of view of multiple telephone speaking. That cable is able to carry radio frequency pulsation. Is it going to be used for the transmission and re-radiation of television in the Midlands? It would be useful if the right hon. Gentleman could let us know whether experiments along those lines are being adopted.

10.10 p.m.

Major Tryon: It seems to me that we have had a most extraordinarily friendly debate and that there has been almost universal support for what the Government are putting forward, namely, that there is enormous advantage from the point of view of good will among the nations and peace throughout the world, in a system under which "straight" British news, impartial news, is sent out by the British Broadcasting Corporation. That is a system which will be looked forward to in other parts of the world and will make a valuable contribution to good will and peace in the world. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) paid a great tribute to the point of view put forward by the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). I am glad to think that


when what I have said is repeated by the right hon. Member for South Hackney, it is regarded with so much satisfaction on the other side of the Committee. I have only one controversial remark to make, and that is in regard to the claim of the right hon. Member for South Hackney that this was a grand triumph for Socialism.

Mr. H. Morrison: I did not speak of party politics.

Major Tryon: All I can say is that the further the right hon. Gentleman went from party politics the better his speech was. It seemed to me that in his reference to Socialism the right hon. Member did imply some contrast between the two sides of the Committee. He did clearly make a point about Socialism. The position is this. I made the point that certain inventors were entitled to great credit because of this wonderful development of television and the machinery by which it is conducted. What was the method by which it was introduced? First, it was due to the inventive genius of people in this country and America, and, secondly, to the fact that two rival private companies in this country developed systems which were tried out by the B.B.C. They worked side by side in two studios and when these two private companies, aided by British inventors, had worked out these systems and one was found to be slightly better than the other, the B.B.C. took over the enterprise from the private company. Then the right hon. Member for South Hackney says, "What a triumph for Socialism."

Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask what difference there is between the inventive capacity of an inventor acting on his own behalf and on behalf of the Government? Further, may I ask how it was that if the operations of these private companies were so efficient they were not allowed to develop their television service to its present state?

Major Tryon: Under either Government management or private enterprise, the inventive genius of our people will continue to display itself, but I have no doubt that it would be considerably cramped under Government management. This particular invention was developed under private enterprise and, as a working proposition, was taken over by the

British Broadcasting Corporation. To quote that example as an argument for Socialism is to make an unsound party point.
Several hon. Members spoke of the importance of the distribution of the television service throughout the country and of the cheapening of sets. With regard to the cheapening of sets we are doing all that we can. The price of the sets has been brought down, and I understand that it will be brought lower. In order to bring that about we have standardised the method of transmission for three years to give the manufacturers a basis to work upon. With regard to the distribution of television in other parts of the country, I was afraid that every Member would get up and suggest that his constituency was the place from which it should be distributed. If it were all to be done from Wales and were closely associated with the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), it might prove to be something far more musical than the broadcasts in Arabic to the Near East.
The situation is that there is a Television Advisory Committee who have taken an enormous amount of trouble. They have a very eminent scientist upon the committee and they have advised us that further scientific research is necessary before anything can be settled about a further extension of the service. The alternatives are to radiate the television from a variety of centres throughout the country or to use, for example, the coaxial cable, mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) for transmitting to various points entertainment provided from a smaller number of centres in the country. It is not possible to expect the British Broadcasting Corporation to go further until we know where we stand as the result of further scientific research. The development of this service will be the work of the scientists, the Advisory Committee, and the British Broadcasting Corporation. In the foreign language broadcasts we have an opportunity of spreading throughout the world good will and reliance upon a thoroughly trustworthy British service.

Mr. H. Morrison: I asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a question about broadcasts in German and Italian.

Major Tryon: It would not be in order for me to say what will be done with a


service to be provided by two new transmitters which will not be opened until next year. That would not be in order on an Estimate providing for a period which terminates on 31st March. In any case, I should not be willing, nine months before the time when we are in a position to provide new services to foreign countries, to name two particular countries.

Mr. H. Morrison: In those circumstances we shall have to divide the Committee. It is obvious that before these new services begin and while they have been in preparation the Government and the British Broadcasting Corporation must have been considering to what countries they would be distributed and the languages in which they were to be distributed. I tried to obtain a reasonably clear statement from the Government. I thought, mistakenly, that I had got it that they were contemplating all languages, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer subsequently limited the

number to two. Afterwards, Portuguese was added. I raised the same question with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the Debate on a Private Member's Motion, and he said that he could not say. Now the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that he cannot say. The Government have had plenty of notice that the Committee and the House would like to have this information, and I can only conclude that they must have some ulterior motive in keeping this information from us. In those circumstances the Committee must divide.

Major Tryon: The Government have made it perfectly clear that the use of foreign languages is not excluded, but we cannot say now which foreign languages will be used next year.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £359,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 216.

Division No. 128.]
AYES.
[10.20 p.m.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Muff, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Naylor, T. E.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hayday, A.
Oliver, G. H.


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Parkinson, J. A.


Batey, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pearson, A.


Ballenger, F. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hicks, E. G.
Pritt, D. N.


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Bevan, A.
Hollins, A.
Ritson, J.


Bromfield, W.
Hopkin, D.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silverman, S. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, F. B.


Cooks, F. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kirby, B. V.
Stephen, C.


Daggar, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lathan, G.
Stokes, R. R.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, J. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Day, H.
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dobbie, W.
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkden, A. G.


Gallacher, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Gardner, B. W.
McGovern, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Maclean, N.
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Marshall, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Mathers, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Maxton, J.



Grenfell, D. R.
Montague, F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.




NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Bernays, R. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Birchall, Sir J. D.


Apsley, Lord
Baxter, A. Beverley
Boothby, R. J. G.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bossom, A. C.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Boulton, W. W.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Bower, Comdr. R. T.




Boyce, H. Leslie
Hambro, A. V.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hannah, I. C.
Porritt, R. W.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Procter, Major H. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Harbord, A.
Radford, E. A.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bull, B. B.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Burghley, Lord
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Butcher, H. W.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Butler, R. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hepworth, J.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Carver, Major W. H.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Raid, W. Allan (Derby)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Higgs, W. F.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Channon, H.
Holdsworth, H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Holmes, J. S.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rowlands, G.


Clydesdale, Marquees of
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hunter, T.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Keeling, E. H.
Salt, E. W.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Kimball, L.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Latham, Sir P.
Savery, Sir Servington


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Scott, Lord William


Cross, R. H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Levy, T.
Simmonds, O. E.


Culverwell, C. T.
Liddall, W. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A


Davidson, Viscountess
Lindsay, K. M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Dawson, Sir P.
Little, Sir E. Graham.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


De Chair, S. S.
Lloyd, G. W.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Denville, Alfred
Loftus, P. C.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Lyons, A. M.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Storey, S.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Eastwood, J. F.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Eckersley, P. T.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
MacDonald, Rt. Han. M. (Ross)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Ellis, Sir G.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Sutcliffe, H.


Elmley, Viscount
McKie, J. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Emery, J. F.
Magnay, T.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mander, G. le M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wakefield, W. W.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Everard, W. L.
Markham, S. F
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Fleming, E L.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ward, Irens M. B. (Wallsend)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Warrender, Sir V.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morgan, R. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Gledhill, G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
White, H. Graham


Gluckstein, L. H.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Goldle, N. B.
Munro, P.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Nall, Sir J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Gridloy, Sir A. B.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Grimston, R. V.
Parkins, W. R. D.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Poters, Dr. S. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Petharick, M.



Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Pilkington, R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Captain Hope and Mr. Furness.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £360,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for a Grant to the British Broadcasting Corporation.

CLASS V.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Local Authorities, Associations and other bodies under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges and other Acts; Grant in Aid of the National Council of Social Service; Expenses of Transfer and Resettlement; Expenses of Training of unemployed persons and, on behalf of the Army


Council and Air Council, of soldiers and airmen for employment; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of the Industrial Court; and sundry services.

10.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): This Supplementary Estimate relates to one aspect of the work of the Ministry of Labour. I do not think that it raises any contentious issue or involves any sweeping change of policy. No money is being asked for from the Committee. The Vote takes the form of a token Vote, and it is put before the Committee only in order to give authority for certain experimental measures relating to training, which have, in fact, been taking place in the course of the last few months. As the Committee no doubt know, this Vote is for training soldiers for civil employment, and certain experimental measures have recently been tried out whereby the responsibility for this training is undertaken by the Ministry of Labour. The Committee and the House have already given their approval to that change, so that no question arises of discussing whether or not that change was desirable. The original intention both of the Ministry of Labour and of the War Office was that this training should take place after the discharge of the soldier from his Colour service, but a modified scheme has recently been introduced whereby this training is now given in Ministry centres during the last six months of the soldier's Colour service.
The one and only point of this Supplementary Estimate is to give authority to these experimental measures. As I have already said, no money is being asked for from the Committee. The provision in the original Estimate of the Ministry of Labour, 1937–38, is adequate to meet any cost that may fall on the Ministry, but it was thought desirable, in view of the nature of the new service, to secure Parliamentary approval for it. I will not go at this stage at great length into the scheme, but the Committee no doubt realise that in the past not only has the Ministry of Labour had training centres, but the Army has had also Army vocational centres. These latter conducted in a highly efficient way, cater for a smaller number of people, the maximum hitherto being envisaged at about 3,000 per year. When it became obvious that the stimu-

lation of recruiting was desirable it was thought to be a good step, in order to secure that stimulation, to increase the facilities for civil employment of men when they leave the Army. It then had to be decided—and the Committee decided last year—whether it was better that this training should be given by two Departments—the Ministry of Labour and the War Office—or whether the training should be centralised under the Ministry of Labour alone. The Committee decided in favour of the latter solution, bearing in mind, no doubt, what seemed personally to me the obvious fact, that the Ministry of Labour is better qualified than any other Department to know the needs, desires and absorptive capacity of the industrial market.
As certain technical and administrative difficulties were bound to arise, it was decided to give this change a six months' experimental period. During this period of six months, which started last November, the Ministry has assumed responsibility. When this period comes to an end at no very far-distant date all the information available will be examined by the two Departments, and there will be opportunities for the House to raise the matter on different Votes, with a view to deciding whether or not the Ministry should continue as a permanency the work it is now doing as an experimental measure. The soldiers spend, if they apply for vocational training, the last six months of their Colour service either at an Army centre or at one of these four Ministry centres, that are reserved for soldiers. And, again, there are places reserved for soldiers at other centres run by the Ministry of Labour. If later, after the experiment has run its projected course, it is thought desirable to make permanent what has been a temporary arrangement, then the two Army vocational centres at Hounslow and Chisledon will be taken over by the Ministry, and with the places already existing at the Ministry's centres, it is anticipated that more than 10,000 soldiers can secure vocational training during the last six months of their Colour service.
I would point out that these new provisions apply also to soldiers who are serving overseas, for they are entitled to come home and spend the last six months of their service at these centres, and if they return from abroad at a date less than the six months' period they are entitled to continue their service to fulfil


the whole period of the six months. Soldiers are taught engineering, building and a wide variety of miscellaneous trades. They are paid Army pay, and allowances. Judging by the figures it may be interesting to the Committee to hear that the soldier has not been slow to take advantage of these facilities. I should like to stress once more that the principle of training is not in question, nor really is the principle of the temporary Ministerial control by the Ministry of Labour of vocational training for soldiers. What is in question is whether or not this training should be given during the six months prior to discharge or, as was originally arranged, when a soldier has completed his service.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: The Parliamentary Secretary in his first speech has given a very simple explanation of the Vote, and he will not be surprised to find hon. Members on this side supporting the Army. But the position is not quite so simple as the hon. Member has described. It has been my lot to be familiar with training centres under the Ministry of Labour and training centres under the War Office. As a matter of fact, the training vocational centres under the War Office are the oldest in the country, and have done splendid work. The War Office some time ago came to a decision on this matter, but this is the first time the Ministry of Labour has brought this Vote before the House in this form. It involves a change which affects a great many men and, therefore, demands serious consideration. The soldier will get his last six months training in these centres just as he will get it in future under the Ministry of Labour, but if the War Office had wanted to extend this training to the last six months of the soldier's service all they had to do was to extend it to all soldiers within the ambit of the vocational training centre system of the Army.
I recognise that there is something to be said for bringing soldiers into touch with civilian life during the last six months of their service, but I impress upon the Committee that the vocational training centres of the Army have an advantage which the Ministry of Labour's training centres do not have, in that very often the soldier is able to bring his wife to the training centre and to live in home conditions during his period of training.

I have seen the working of both these systems, and although I am not a critic, except when it is necessary, of the Ministry of Labour's training centres, I like the family spirit of the vocational training centres of the Army much more than I like the Ministry of Labour's training system. I would also draw attention to the fact that the vocational training centres of the Army, which have been in operation practically since the War, have built up a great technique, not only of understanding soldiers, but of getting posts and contracts, which I am afraid will be lost to the soldiers, because of their having been isolated for some years from ordinary civilian life. I do not intend to press my Amendment to a Division, or to delay the Committee at any length on this matter, but I do not think a decision such as this should have been taken on a Supplementary Estimate at this time of night. It ought to have been more fully considered in proper circumstances, and I think it is worth while considering it more seriously than apparently has been the case. I take it that there will be three vocational training centres less, since the object is to wind up these three training centres.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown) indicated dissent.

Mr. Lawson: I am glad that is not the case, but we have not had that assurance before. I thought that was the object, because, with all due respect to the War Office and the Army authorities, they have not cared too much for this system. If they had, they would have developed the whole system long ago, but instead there have been several attacks on the vocational training system in the Army. I had hoped that I should have had an opportunity of saying something about training centres generally, but I gather that we cannot raise the question of the ordinary Ministry of Labour system.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is correct in that assumption.

Mr. Lawson: All I will say, then, is that by this Vote we are asked practically to abolish the vocational training centre system of the Army. I think that is a mistake and I think the matter ought to be considered again; but while holding that opinion, I and my hon. Friends are not prepared to press the matter to a Division.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I think we may congratulate ourselves that for once in a while we are discussing some other subject than foreign affairs, even though it is half-past 10. As far as I understand the matter, it is intended that the centres which are now being run by the Army shall be transferred to the Ministry of Labour. The soldier will continue to be trained in these centres, although he will be allowed to go, if necessary, to a Ministry of Labour training centre which is already established, and instead of finishing his time with the colours as formerly he will be allowed to utilise the last six months of his service.

Mr. Lawson: He always has been able to utilise the last six months of his service.

Mr. Buchanan: I was only following what the hon. Gentleman said. Hitherto the soldier has been trained by the Army and the Army has been entirely responsible for him during his training. He is trained by the military authorities while still a serving soldier. What is proposed now is that in the last six months of his service he shall be transferred to the Ministry of Labour for training purposes. But he does not cease to be a soldier and you will have serving soldiers being trained along with civilians. Is the soldier, during that six months, while he is undergoing training under the Ministry of Labour, to be subject to military law or to civil law? If he committed any offence he would as a soldier in the ordinary course come within the military system. When he has been transferred to a civil authority to be trained with civilians, is he still within the military system?
Suppose that the trainees at a centre are discontented with their conditions. The civilian can walk out of the training centre. He may be liable to certain penalties afterwards in connection with his benefit but he is subject to no other penalty. Can the soldier act in the same way or is he still to be treated as a soldier? Once he has been transferred he ought to be treated as a civilian, in no way connected with Army discipline. I say to hon. Members above the Gangway that it is a serious matter if you are to have serving soldiers trained alongside civilians and if the soldier is to be subject to the threat that if he does anything wrong he will be returned to his

regiment and dealt with as having acted contrary to military law. I trust that after the soldier's transference to the civil system the threat will not be used against him that for any alleged misdemeanour he may be transferred back to the Army for punishment. It may be that the Ministry of Labour has a wider range as regards placing men in jobs, and that may be an attraction, but the position ought to be made clear. If it is the case that a man is to be treated as a soldier while serving in a civilian training centre, then I am inclined to carry this matter to a Division. I do not think that it would be fair either to the soldiers or to the civilians to have a man serving in this dual role, and I trust that the Under-Secretary will be able to clear up the position of the serving soldier in relation to civilian rights.

10.50 p.m.

Sir Joseph Nall: The hon. Gentleman has raised an issue which possibly cannot be settled on this Vote, but his remarks have a bearing on what was said by my hon. Friend in moving the Vote. The question is whether a soldier has to undergo this training six months before he leaves the Army or after he leaves the Army. If he is to be treated as a civilian subject to civil law, obviously he can be discharged from the Army and do his training after he ceases to be a soldier. On the other hand, if he has to do his training while he is still a soldier, that is to say during the months prior to his discharge, he must remain subject to military law unless we amend the Army Act, and no expression of opinion in this House can alter the Army Act. For what the hon. Gentleman has said raises a point which would require an amendment of the Army Act.
The question raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is not in dispute; that is already settled. These soldiers are going over to the Ministry of Labour. I think it is very pertinent to know whether these centres, which have been so well established and recognised in the Army, are going to be continued more or less as they are. It is very much to be hoped that the Ministry of Labour will not alter the existing system and close down the existing centres and transfer the whole business to some new place, with some new civilian personnel, who might quite well fail to under-


stand the psychology of soldiers, and not inspire the confidence which the soldier has at the present time. But with regard to what I understood to be the main question raised by my hon. Friend, I very much hope that the soldier will begin his training before he leaves the Army, and his period of military service could be extended if necessary owing to a late return from foreign service—which is a thing, it seems to me, that the soldier would approve. But I hope it will be made clear that so long as the soldier is undergoing training he must, unless we amend the Army Act, be subject to military law, although the conditions may be relaxed in some respects appropriate to a civilian occupation.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Annesley Somerville: I would like to ask a question of my hon. Friend. I am very much interested in the Army centre at Chisledon, where the training was extremely good and the results obtained were very satisfactory. Is that training centre to remain intact, or is it to be taken over by the Ministry of Labour? I do not remember the House having an opportunity of discussing this principle of handing over the military training centres to the Ministry of Labour. There was a very efficient labour school at Brandon. I do not know in what condition that is now. At one time it was on a basis of care and maintenance. I wonder whether that is still the case. I should be much obliged if the Under-Secretary can tell us what is the position of that centre. The point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) seems to me to be worthy of attention and to require explanation. If such an efficient centre as Chisledon is to go out of action, I should regret it very much. I think the Committee would be interested to know the relative position of centres like Chisledon and Brandon.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I would like to stress the point already raised and to say that I would prefer these soldiers to be under the Ministry of Labour, with the provision, suggested by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), that they should be there on the same terms as any other trainee. It has been suggested that an amendment of the Army Act would be necessary.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have not had the advantage of consultation with the Minister of Labour on this point, but if an amendment of the Army Act is required, that point cannot be raised now.

Mr. Davidson: My point is that such an important matter should be attended to immediately. I should like to congratulate the hon. Member who spoke from the Government Front Bench on this question. I do so because I consider that he spoke like a true Parliamentarian, and it is very pleasing for my friends and myself to see the easy assimilation of democratic principles that is taking place on the Treasury Bench. It has been stated that the Committee are being asked for no more money in regard to these soldiers, but I think we are entitled to have some idea as to how this scheme is working. It is all very well to make a general statement that the Minister requires no more money, but we desire to have some idea of what is taking place in these training centres, whether the money has been used to expand them in order to cope with this new number of trainees coming in, whether new methods of instruction are being used, and whether it is considered that this six months period is sufficient, or whether it will be extended in order to give these ex-soldiers and other trainees a more efficient service.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I take it that the young soldier coming out of the Army will be trained at the same centre as the civilian, and if that is so, I would like to point out that the young soldier will be getting his dinner at the same table as the civilian and that the Minister of Labour is going to ask him to pay for his midday meal. There is £4,000 mentioned here. I think that it would be wiser if the soldier was not asked to pay for his dinner, and you would then get £4,000 worth of satisfaction. I would like the Minister to answer whether they will have to pay for their own meals or whether he will take into consideration the advisability of giving them their meals the same as the civilians who sit at the same table.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think either my right hon. Friend or I have any cause to complain of the nature of the criticisms levelled at this proposal. It is the desire of the Government, as of hon. Members opposite, to do what is possible to give


the maximum amount of help to the soldier in order to fit him for civilian employment. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) asked what would be the position of the training centres in the Army vocational training scheme. If the result of this experiment which is now being conducted is to transfer the control permanently to the Ministry of Labour of all vocational training for soldiers, it is the intention to close down the vocational centre at Aldershot and to transfer the control of the Ministry of Labour to the Army vocational centres at Chisledon and Hounslow; and also, if possible, to transfer the staffs which may be affected at Aldershot and try to find work for them. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street asked whether there would not be some loss of the efficient contact which had been built up between employers and the Army vocational centres over many years. I do not anticipate any such danger; nor do I think that the soldiers who are affected have that fear. The figures show that on 3rd March no fewer than 999 home service soldiers and 1,015 overseas soldiers now in England have been accepted at Ministry of Labour centres, making a total of 2,014. In addition, there are some 560 other applicants whom it is hoped to absorb by the end of this month. When it is considered how meagre was the response to the original scheme, I think that that excellent response might do something to reassure hon. Gentlemen on that point.
In regard to the comments of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I am afraid I did not perhaps make myself clear as to the six months period. Under the old system, if a soldier went to an Army vocational centre, he went for the last six months of his Colour service, and if he went to a Ministry centre he could go only after discharge. Under the new proposals, all will be treated alike and will go either to the two Army vocational centres that will be taken over or to a Ministry centre for the last six months of their Colour service. The hon. Gentleman asked whether they would be trained along with civilians, and a similar point was raised by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths). They will be for a time. At the present moment four centres are being reserved at Slough, Waddon, Handsworth, and Southampton. In time they will not be trained along

with civilians. It is only a temporary arrangement. The hon. Member for Gorbals also said he would prefer that soldiers were treated according to civilian law and not subject any more to military discipline. Under the original proposals, which received no support from the soldiers, they would have been subject to no military discipline, but only to civilian regulations; but under these new proposals whereby they remain serving soldiers during their training, they will, of course, be subject to military discipline for certain things.
The response shown by the soldiers leads me to think that they are not seriously alarmed at that prospect. They will remain for all purposes, until discharge, under military law. Subject to that legal position, the intention is that the discipline in these centres shall be on civilian lines rather than on military lines. The men will wear civilian clothes and not uniform. There will be no military penalties, and the only way of dealing with a serious case of offence would be to return the soldier to his unit. I hope that what I have said in regard to the Army vocational training centres has reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall). He was right when he suggested that if soldiers prefer to be treated as civilians they have only to wait until their discharge and then, in competition with other people, secure a place at a Ministry centre. In regard to the point of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) that there would be no opportunity for the House to consider the new principle of ministerial control involved, I would remind him that my right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for War, now the First Lord of the Admiralty, made a very full statement on the subject on the Army Estimates last year.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) asked why, if the soldiers were having their midday meal in conjunction with the civilians, they should be obliged to pay. As I have said, this mixing of soldiers and civilians is only a temporary arrangement, but if he will look at the Estimates he will see another reason. When civilians are trained at these centres because they are unemployed some part of the cost of their maintenance is met by a grant from the Unemployment Fund, and the total is £27,000. The soldiers who are in train-


ing there during their service are not unemployed, and there is no such payment from the Unemployment Fund, and the response to the scheme shows that the soldiers are not disturbed at some contribution being collected from them.

Mr. G. Griffiths: The soldiers will feel a grievance.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They have really no grievance. They are joining in welcome numbers, showing that they have no grievance. They will be receiving their full Army pay and allowances, and I think it is not unreasonable to ask a contribution from them in return for the many benefits which they will receive.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. A. Jenkins: I gathered from the statement of the hon. Member that it is intended to reserve four centres for the training of soldiers for the time being, and further that there may be instances in which soldiers will go to other centres for training. Is the reservation of four centres for soldiers to be a permanent arrangement, or is it intended later that the training of soldiers shall be mixed up, as it were, with the training of unemployed persons?

Mr. Buchanan: Will the last six months of a soldier's service, in which he is doing this work, count in connection with standard unemployment benefit in the ordinary way on his discharge?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The answer to that question is "Yes." In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) the four centres for soldiers will be permanent and not temporary. They will be at Slough, Waddon, Southampton and Handsworth. During the period of transition there must be soldiers and civilians training together, but that is temporary. The maintenance of these four centres for soldiers will be permanent.

Mr. Jenkins: Is it intended in the final scheme that soldiers shall be trained separately?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Lennox-Boyd indicated assent.

Mr. Jenkins: I assume that the real position is that the Ministry of Labour will be taking over the training of soldiers for this purpose?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Lennox-Boyd indicated assent.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Local Authorities, Associations and other bodies under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges and other Acts; Grant in Aid of the National Council of Social Service; Expenses of Transfer and Resettlement; Expenses of Training of unemployed persons and, on behalf of the Army Council and Air Council, of soldiers and airmen for employment; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of the Industrial Court; and sundry services.

CLASS VI.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £229,450, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants and grants-in-aid in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and fishery research; and grants, grants-in-aid, and expenses in respect of improvement of breeding, etc., of livestock, land settlement, improvement of cultivation, drainage, etc., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, and marketing, control of diseases of fish, fishery development; and sundry other services.

11.10 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): My right hon. Friend would not have needed to ask for this Supplementary Estimate of £229,450 had it not been for the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. Had those outbreaks not occurred there would have been a substantial saving on the Vote. On page 21 there is shown additional expenditure required in connection with foot and mouth disease of £420,000. That has been reduced by net savings on the subhead amounting to £85,600, bringing the figure to £334,400. The principal saving has been in respect of tuberculosis in cattle, and as a result of the decision to postpone Part IV of the Agriculture Act, 1937, from 1st January to 1st April next. Therefore the net increase is £334,400. The additional provision for other Ser-


vices amounts to about 10 per cent. of that figure, namely £35,000.
The Committee would like me to say a few words about the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease which are the occasion of this Supplementary Estimate. During the first six months of the financial year there were only 17 outbreaks, costing £39,000. Since then and up to the closing of the Estimate there were 261 other outbreaks, involving a total expenditure of £455,000. We ask for power to provide £45,000 for other possible outbreaks, making a grand total of £500,000; that is to say, £420,000, as shown in this Estimate, plus the original Estimate of £80,000.
The series of outbreaks began in the middle of October. It was of a severe character and its source was Central Europe. This disease was apparently reintroduced into France from North Africa and spread during the summer through France and Belgium, Holland and Germany. To give an illustration of the position at our peak stage of the series of outbreaks, when we had 87 outbreaks, there were 45,085 in France, 22,419 in Belgium, and 21,604 in Germany. Since then I am glad to say that so far as we are concerned and, fortunately, so far as other countries are concerned, there has been a satisfactory decrease of the disease. It is clearly waning. In January we had 75 outbreaks, 26 in February, and up to 8th March there was only one.
I do not want to worry the Committee with a long story of the origin of the outbreaks; but it is supposed that migratory birds are responsible for the infection coming to this country. The heaviest infection was in the autumn at the time of the mass migration of birds to the Eastern and Southern counties. This type of disease is very virulent and is exactly of the same virulent character as the disease on the Continent. We know that the disease can be carried long distances. It is not yet known whether birds are susceptible, but it is highly probable that they are mechanical carriers of the virus. Other suggested sources of it are, of course, rats, hedgehogs, imported vegetables, motor tyres, and so forth, but if any of them had been responsible we should have expected a much wider distribution of the disease. One fact that emerges is that in this country, for a total

expenditure of less than £500,000 and the destruction of 50,000 animals—a very small fraction indeed of our total animal population—we have saved this country from anything in the nature of the appalling disaster which has fallen upon Central Europe. That seems a very small premium to pay for the very great risk that is involved.
The Committee would, perhaps, like me to say a word about research, which is of vital importance in dealing with this disease. It is carried out by the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Committee which has recently, and rightly, been strengthened. It consists of eminent scientists in the medical and veterinary professions, under the chairmanship of Sir Joseph Arkwright, and it is giving particular attention at the moment to the problem of immunisation, which is complicated by the fact that there are several types of virus in this disease. Immunity may be secured against one type by means which will not give immunity against another. The committee have also outlined a series of experiments to ascertain whether birds are susceptible to the disease or are capable of mechanically transmitting the virus. The question of a serum, as employed in Germany, has been carefully studied and experiments made, but so far they have not been very successful.
I want to draw the attention of the Committee to some facts about land drainage. It will be seen from page 20 of the Estimates that there are anticipated savings of £65,000 on land drainage grants, which must seem rather strange in view of the experience of past years. The explanation is that it is often extremely difficult to estimate for the exact sum required, particularly with a new service. Of this sum, £40,000 is accounted for by Part III of the Agriculture Act of last summer, under which the Minister was empowered to make grants to statutory drainage authorities. It was very hard to estimate what would be the amount required in the first year. We provided £100,000, and in point of fact only £60,000 was wanted; hence the saving of £40,000. There were 188 schemes approved, at an estimated cost of £182,500. The balance of £25,000 related to grant-aided catchment board schemes under Section 55 of the Land Drainage Act of 1930. A catchment board failing to keep to its estimated expendi-


ture may have a substantial effect upon the Ministry's Vote. For example, the Trent Board spent less than was estimated, and there was a reduction of £29,000 in the Vote, but that has been offset to a large extent by extra money spent by several other boards. Notwithstanding that, there is a net saving of £25,000, making, with the £40,000, a saving of £65,000.
I wish to make only one further point, which will be of interest to hon. Gentlemen opposite. On page 21 there is a small item of £950 relating to repayment to the War Office and the Air Ministry in respect of services rendered by them in the fenlands last year. Hon. Members will recollect the grave dangers that arose in that part of the country last year. A great deal of emergency work had to be done on the spot and at once. It was not a question of getting fresh men to make up the banks; you cannot employ more than a certain number on the banks, and local men are the best for the work. But there is the question of communications, so that people may be warned of the danger points, and for that purpose the signal units of the Army and the Air Force were placed at the disposal of the local authorities, which accounts for the expenditure involved. If there are any other points that hon. Members wish to raise, my right hon. Friend will deal with them when he comes to reply, but I think I have dealt with the main points of the Vote.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I am obliged to the Minister of Pensions for the explanation he has given for his former Department, and to the Minister of Agriculture for turning up to deal with any points that we may raise. I do not propose to detain the Committee for long, but there are several very important points which ought to be considered. The opening statement of the Minister of Pensions with regard to the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the last few months is of great importance to farmers and to the community as a whole. A very heavy recurring expenditure is involved from year to year, and farmers are thrown into an appalling disturbance in which it is certain that confidence cannot be restored by the actual monetary compensation that they get. No matter in which part of the House we sit, we can

always have complete sympathy with the farmer who is suddenly faced with the decimation of a herd which he has taken, perhaps, years to build up, and the replenishment of which cannot possibly be provided for out of the Government compensation.
That leads me to say that it is all the more important that every possible effort should be made to avoid, as soon as it can conveniently and safely be done, the policy of slaughter. Of course it is plain that up to the present slaughter has been the right policy for getting rid of the disease, and I am not very much encouraged by the Minister's references to the serum experiments in Germany. I have yet to learn, however, that, in connection with the much more widespread outbreaks on the Continent, the same ruthless policy of slaughter is followed, and the sooner we can get a satisfactory serum for a policy of inoculation against the disease, the better it will be both for the taxpayer and for the peace of mind and confidence and stability of the farming community generally.
I think we are entitled to ask, in connection with this new increased Vote, what is the sum that is being spent this year on research for this service? We are glad to know that there is a committee sitting, under the able chairmanship of Sir Joseph Arkwright, but we are not encouraged as regards these research reports when we discover from the Schedule to the Supplementary Estimate that the Government's chief concern is apparently to save maney. If hon. Members interested in the farming community will look at Items G.3 and G.6 dealing with agricultural education grants and research generally, they will find a saving of £40,000, which does not seem very encouraging as regards the point we have now in mind. Will the Minister tell us, in the first place, what he is spending on research in regard to foot-and-mouth disease this year, and how soon this position can be improved? I could say a great deal more about this, but it is late, and I do not want to detain the Committee.
I hope the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance with regard to the second matter which he raised. One is a little disturbed by the fact that the drainage grants in question are not reaching the


amount which was estimated by the Minister. I recognise that when any Department comes to Parliament for money for grants which depend on the work actually carried out by authorities other than the Department, much depends on those authorities; but a great deal also depends on the amount of pressure which is brought by the Department upon those authorities, to induce them to carry out the work. When one considers the situation which has arisen again in the last few weeks in the eastern counties with regard to floods—and floods not entirely caused by land drainage in the catchment areas, but aided by floods up the river from high tides—

The Chairman: I have been looking in the Estimate for these items to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Alexander: There are two items. In page 20, there is the saving, referred to by the Minister in his opening statement, of £65,000 on drainage grants, and in page 21 there is an item of £950 repayment for services rendered by the War Office and Air Ministry in respect of floods in 1937.

The Chairman: The first item to which the right hon. Gentleman refers can quite properly be mentioned, but savings and appropriations in aid cannot be debated. The other item refers to the floods in 1937.

Mr. Alexander: I do not know what your view is, Sir Dennis, on this point. If the Minister comes to us for a Supplementary Estimate of £455,000, and then says, "We do not want all that, because we are going to save on land drainage grants," and we think he is not spending enough, surely we are entitled to say that it is not right to run the risk of a new menace because of the money he is saving on that?

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman cannot do that on a Supplementary Estimate. The only way it comes in is as a saving, and, therefore, it is not part of the Estimate.

Mr. Alexander: I do not want to come into conflict with you, Sir Dennis, on a matter of this kind. My point will be met if I say that we have an item of expenditure of £950 with regard to services rendered during the flood menace in the spring of 1937. I think I am entitled

to say that, if the grants for land drainage had been properly taken up by the authorities who should do the work and to whom the grants should be made, that money, in all probability, would not have been required, and that there is every indication, on the experience of the last few weeks, that the menace has not been removed, but is being threatened again.

The Chairman: I am afraid that it is useless for the hon. Member to refer to the item of £950 as connected with what he wants to talk about: he has been driven to link up the £950 to the savings in order to get away from the 1937 Estimate to 1938. That will not do, as he cannot discuss the savings and we cannot discuss the hon. Member's subject of 1938 floods.

Mr. Alexander: I do admire the dialectics of the Chair, but I admire even more this little Box and Cox arrangement of expenditure and saving.

The Chairman: If Cox is a saving we cannot discuss it.

Mr. Alexander: I feel sure in my own mind—I hope that I am not being unduly insistent about the point—that I am on sound ground when I say that this point with regard to the £950 of expenditure would not have been necessary if the item of saving had not occurred. If the money had been properly spent on land drainage and the areas had been made free from menace, we would not have had the Army and Navy special accounts in order to meet the menace. That is the whole case I want to put to the Minister, and I want to express my profound regret that we seem to be faced with a new menace in the Eastern Counties to-day.

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is all right up to that point, but he must not go beyond it.

Mr. Alexander: I will put it another way. I think that I may ask on this Supplementary Estimate what steps the Minister is taking in connection with the land drainage authorities, catchment boards and others to prevent another presentation to this Committee of a Supplementary Estimate of payment to the Army and Navy to meet another menace. We have recently had a flood menace, and I ask what steps the Minister is taking to prevent another menace? Perhaps we


can then get an answer which will be in order.

The Chairman: I am not quite sure about what answer would be in order, but, as I have often said, when it is generally for the convenience of the Committee, I do not mind stretching a point to allow a question to be asked, if the Minister is prepared to answer it, but it must be only a brief question and a brief answer.

Mr. Alexander: If it had not been for my difficulty in meeting your point of Order, Sir Dennis, my question might have been finished before now. I want to keep in order, but I think that you will agree that in the present danger in the Eastern Counties it would not only be for the convenience of the Committee, but would be in the public interest that the Minister should give all the information he can and state the steps that are being taken to deal with the menace. It depends upon the answer of the Minister whether we shall or shall not divide the Committee on this Vote.

11.34 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I notice that there is a saving of £80,000 on the diseases of animals grants in respect of tuberculosis in cattle which is set off as against the expenses on foot-and-mouth disease. There is also in Z, Appropriations-in-aid, an anticipated deficiency on the contribution from the diseases of animals account in respect of staff and duties in connection with tuberculosis in cattle amounting to £23,000. That, I understand, is an extra expenditure, but I am not clear as to the form in which it takes place. If it is a deficiency in Appropriations-in-aid, I take it that more was expended and that that has not been met by the anticipated Appropriation-in-aid. I should be glad if the Minister would explain that matter. Why has less money been spent on dealing with tuberculosis in cattle? Is it because there is less tuberculosis—though I am afraid not—or is it because less work is being done on tuberculosis and fewer steps are being taken to purify the herds? About £80,000 has not been spent and we are most anxious to see that the purification of the milk supply of the country is proceeded with as rapidly as possible. We are most anxious that there shall be no let-up to get our herds free from tuberculosis.

Mr. Davidson: I have received a letter from a constituent who claims to have given 15 years to a study of agricultural problems, who says that he sent certain information to the Ministry of Agriculture on the prevention of foot-and-mouth disease. I should like to know whether such efforts on the part of private people are encouraged by the Research Department of the Ministry and whether they are considered.

11.37 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I can only give the general assurance that the Research Committee, which was set up to consider the question of foot-and-mouth disease and other diseases, is always ready to consider any suggestion which is made to it and which would help to solve a problem which is not only a British concern but a European concern. On the general question of research, there is a complete interchange, internationally, of information upon these common problems. A central office in Paris collects all information obtained in any country and it is at once transmitted to us. When hon. Members consider the question of expenditure upon research they must remember that in this matter there are no international boundaries and that there is complete freedom for the interchange of information. The hon. and learned Member has raised the question of the saving on tuberculosis. I was glad to hear that the hon. and learned Member favours and supports the policy of clearing our herds of disease as the most satisfactory way of securing a supply of pure milk. I cordially agree, and I can assure him that this saving is due to no slackening of our efforts on that score, but is indirectly due to increased momentum in that direction. In the Agriculture Act passed last summer I proposed to make an assault on this disease by means of a central State veterinary service, taking over the functions performed by veterinary officers attached to and employed by local authorities. At the time the Estimate was framed I anticipated that it would be possible for the new service to take over the duties of local authorities by 1st January, 1938, but when it came to the details of transferring these many duties to the new staff I found as a matter of administration, in order to secure smoothness, it would be necessary to allow a little more time, and consequently the


date of the transfer was postponed from 1st January to 1st April. As the Act provided for the payment of these officers from 1st January, and as we shall not have to provide the money until 1st April there is a saving to which the hon. and learned Member has drawn attention. I should like to tell the Committee that there has been a satisfactory response by the agricultural community to the new inducements offered by the Act for attested and disease free herds. I hope that the momentum now given to that beneficent process will continue, for the benefit of us all.
With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), I am sure the whole Committee will share the sympathy which he expressed with the farmers who, in some cases of foot-and-mouth disease, have seen the work of a lifetime destroyed when a cherished herd has had to be slaughtered. I wish to pay a tribute to the agricultural community which, throughout this visitation, has shown itself alert to report to and co-operate with the authorities in the eradication of the disease. During this very trying time, I have received letters of an encouraging character showing that the slaughter policy is backed up by the whole farming community, despite the inconvenience caused by its operation.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no question of our ceasing to pursue research for the purpose of finding an adequate serum. The right hon. Gentleman asked for certain figures as to the expenditure upon research. I have recently proposed an extension of the foot-and-mouth disease Research Committee, bringing in certain other scientists whom we think can collaborate; and the estimated expenditure for 1938–39 is approximately £30,000. I would again remind the Committee that that sum has to be considered in conjunction with the expenditure of other countries, whose results are freely pooled with our results. I assure hon. Members that no effort will be spared to find a satisfactory serum.
My hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions mentioned the difficulty that surrounds the serum question, and the Committee may be interested to know that about fifteen months ago, we re-

ceived from Germany a serum to which the Germans attach some importance. It was tested in the Research Committee, but the Committee recommended that, although it was efficient in the case of mildly virulent attacks, it was not advisable to recommend is as a trustworthy alternative to the slaughter policy. How wise that advice was has been shown by the fact that, although the serum was largely employed on the Continent in the recent outbreak, there the disease was completely victorious over the immunity which it was supposed to give.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough also referred to the saving on drainage, and my hon. Friend indicated what was the chief reason for that saving. It also arises from the Act, which was passed last summer, in which we provided £100,000 in order to make grants to drainage authorities other than catchment boards. Those authorities have not, in fact, availed themselves of the full amount provided by Parliament. The Act was passed last July, but it took some time for the local authorities, the internal drainage boards and the county councils to frame schemes, and they could not do so in time for them to become operative during the winter season, for which the grants were available. I am confident that in future years, with more preparation, they will be able to take further advantage of this sum of money.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulty which sometimes arises on the Supplementary Estimates of dealing with matters of policy, but perhaps I may be permitted to give this general explanation of the duties of the Ministry and of our position at the present time. The duty of land drainage, for the most part, falls entirely on those local authorities created for the purpose by the Land Drainage Act, 1930. The Minister's duty in the matter is, for the most part, to give advice, which is sometimes accepted and sometimes not accepted, and to provide grants from public funds in aid of the local necessities. The powers of coercion supposed to be possessed by the Minister under the Act are non-existent, but I am glad to say that we have established happy relations with the catchment boards.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Board of Trade make themselves a great nuisance


to these catchment boards by imposing charges for foreshore protection works?

Mr. Morrison: There is some divided responsibility with regard to the Crown foreshore, which still reposes in the Board of Trade, but I would not like to assent to any general proposition such as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that they make themselves a great nuisance. As a matter of fact, I am a sort of guardian angel of the catchment boards, and if the right hon. Gentleman has any knowledge of any instance where he thinks a board is being hampered in its duties, and we may be able to overcome the difficulty, I shall be very glad if he will inform me of the circumstances, because I am anxious to assist the boards in carrying out their very responsible tasks. In the present case I can only say that we are keeping the situation under close observation and are having constant consultations from day to day with the catchment boards, and in so far as any further assistance can be granted them, applications from them will be speedily and sympathetically considered.

Mr. Alexander: We did not get any explanation as to why there was such a heavy saving on the four items for research.

Mr. Morrison: The saving under this sub-head is largely on account of veterinary research. A sum of £22,350 was saved owing to the postponement of part of the contemplated experimental programme, a programme which rendered necessary the erection of certain buildings and building alterations. A research building has to be elaborately guarded to prevent animals from spreading contamination outside, and we had planned certain alterations which in fact were not completed in the time. The other savings are due to delays in connection with certain research institutes which we aid by grants. They are for the most part initiated on the responsibility of local authorities, and we had provided a sum equal to what we thought would be called upon by local authorities as grants-in-aid from central funds. This is a matter where our expenditure follows automatically on that of local authorities, and as they have actually spent less than was contemplated, we have not been called upon for such a large contribution.

Mr. Alexander: In view of what the Minister has said, we shall not move a reduction of the Estimate, but we are not satisfied about the research grants, and we hope that the Minister, in dealing with the Civil Estimates this year, will tell us something more about what pressure can be brought to bear to see that the research grants are needed.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £229,450, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants and grants in aid in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and fishery research; and grants, grants in aid and expenses in respect of improvement of breeding, etc., of live stock, land settlement, improvement of cultivation, drainage, etc., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, and marketing, control of diseases of fish, fishery development; and sundry other services.

CLASS VI.

DEPARTMENT OF OVERSEAS TRADE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £87,810, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade, including Grants in Aid of the Imperial Institute and the Travel and Industrial Development Association of Great Britain and Ireland.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The two large sums composing the Estimate will be found referred to on page 18—£35,700 in respect of the Exhibition in Paris and £56,500 in respect of the Empire Exhibition in Glasgow. Both sums are required owing to unforeseen increases of expenditure. If the Committee would like me to answer any particular questions on these matters, I shall be glad to do so.

Mr. Benn: How much was spent on the Paris Exhibition in 1936 and 1937?

Mr. Hudson: The total cost of the Paris Exhibition was expected to amount to the gross sum of £105,380, showing an excess of £29,730.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing about the small item for


the international sporting exhibition. Who benefits by the sum that has been expended? Is it the exhibitors?

Mr. Hudson: No. The international sporting exhibition at Berlin was held as a result of a recommendation by our Ambassador at Berlin that it would tend to improve relations. I understand that a great deal of the work was done by the "Field" newspaper and that no charge was made by them in respect of their services.

Mr. Davidson: May we have some explanation of the item relating to the Glasgow Exhibition? We generally supposed that a very efficient committee had been set up to advise the various Departments as to the necessity for this exhibition. In view of the nearness of the event, may we have some explanation why the committee were so far out in their estimates?

Mr. Hudson: The answer to the last point is that the Government had contemplated a display upon a very much smaller scale. Very largely as a result of our experience at the Paris Exhibition, it was decided to enlarge the scope of the pavilion, and the cost was consequently raised by the sum for which I now ask.

Mr. Davidson: Is this the increased cost of a bigger pavilion or the cost of an enlarged Army and Air Force pavilion where recruiting facilities are provided for? Whereabouts in the exhibition have the Government made the mistake and have now decided to be more generous? Is it in the Amusement Park?

Mr. Benn: This seems to be the proper occasion on which to say something of the Paris Exhibition. I do not know how many hon. Gentlemen had the misfortune to visit it; if so, they must have found the British Pavilion a complete joke. The building itself was only a cardboard box with drawings of cave-men on the outside. Inside were some excellent books and excellent glass, but the whole effect made the thing look like a bargain basement in a store. That is a moderate statement. There were displays relating to hunting, shooting and fishing, one or two people in plus fours, a lady in an ill-fitting riding habit, 52 cricket bats, a large number of paper aeroplanes and a farm cart. Was all that a contribution

to our national prestige? And £100,000 is what it is to cost us. It was a great misfortune, because other pavilions at the exhibition were very imaginative and externally were very beautiful. The Egyptian Pavilion and, of course, as regards the great Soviet and German pavilions, the former was the better outside, but the German was the better inside. All that we had to exhibit were 52 cricket bats. I forgot to mention that there was a gigantic photograph of the Prime Minister, with a fishing rod in his hand, but but nothing on the end of the line. A friend of mine overheard some French people who were discussing what these pieces of wood were. The wife said to the husband, "What are those bits of wood?" He replied, confidentially, "My dear, they are batons for dealing with the strikers in England." I believe the right hon. Gentleman disavows all responsibility for the design of this pavilion and for its contents, and we will leave it at that, but I feel that some public mention ought to be made of the appalling effect it produced on those who visited the exhibition.
The most interesting thing about this Estimate is this item for a sporting exhibition in Berlin. On 11th November last a notice was issued by the Privy Council Office informing us that, by invitation of the Editor of the "Field," who was the main exhibitor, as explained by the right hon. Gentleman, the Lord President of the Council was to visit Berlin, presumably, said this notice, in his capacity of Master of Hounds. So that this in fact is the one opportunity, if the Committee of Supply does its proper work, of examining the only financial provision which we have made for the visit of Lord Halifax to Berlin. On that, I am quite clear because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when asked on the Friday following about this notice, curious as coming from so august a body as the Privy Council, came down to the House and explained that the purpose of the Halifax journey was in order that he should visit the hunting exhibition. Therefore it is worth a little discussion, this Halifax-Berlin visit, under this Vote.
On 17th November Lord Halifax arrived in Berlin and went to the sporting exhibition, for which we are now asked to vote £2,500, and he saw a great many heads of animals, and, in addition, we are told by the "Times," he saw a map of the lost German Colonies, prominently


displayed. The day that Lord Halifax selected for a visit to this exhibition was what is called by the German Protestants Busztag. Buszen means to make amends or to pay for or to restore. On this Busztag, therefore, the Lord President inspected this map of the lost German Colonies. On the next day, 18th November, he paid a second visit to the exhibition, when he was accompanied by an Oberstjägermeister. Then he returned to London. He explained it all to a meeting of the Anglo-German Society, at which the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was present. He said:
He had had the pleasure of paying a visit to Berlin for the purpose, he would remind them, of visiting the great hunting exhibition.
He made some report on this to his colleagues, which was referred to by the late Foreign Secretary and apparently caused a sharp division of opinion in the Cabinet, and led to other events, which it would not be in order for me to refer more closely.

The Chairman: I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman was going to get to something that would be in order. I must remind him that there is nothing in this Estimate in any way connected with the visit of Lord Halifax.

Mr. Benn: You must have overlooked, Sir Dennis, the notice issued by the Privy Council, which said that he went as the guest of the "Field."

The Chairman: This is not a Vote for the "Field."

Mr. Benn: But the whole exhibition was organised by the "Field" and subsidised by the Government.

The Chairman: I am afraid that the connection is too remote.

Mr. Benn: In that case, I will come to the nature of the exhibition itself. This was an exhibition of jungle life. It showed us a tract in which there was no moral law. It showed specimens of great animals bearing the semblance of human beings, but with no sense of the realities of justice. It showed us smaller creatures who were unprotected by the greater creatures, but who, as the Prime Minister said quite frankly, in another connection recently, were compelled to seek what friends they could. They were toadies of the great creatures, adding to

their strength and force. It showed us the heads of the great animals, red in tooth and claw, who relied on their own strength. It showed us the jungle, which in its constant conflict, forced the standard of living so very low. In the end the exhibition showed, most remarkable of all, the heads of the animals which, relying on force alone, had met their end.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £87,810, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade, including Grants-in-Aid of the Imperial Institute and the Travel and Industrial Development Association of Great Britain and Ireland.

MERCANTILE MARINE SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain Services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund and other Services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including Services under the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935, the Coastguard, General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen and Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions.

12.3 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): The total sum asked for in this modest Estimate is £15,200, and it can fairly be allocated under four headings. There is first £7,700 for general administration due to the increased activities of the Department; secondly, £1,000 in connection with the relief, repatriation, wages and expenses of British seamen abroad, due directly to the increased shipping activity in the period in question. Then there is £2,500 for the North Atlantic ice patrol, due to the earlier appearance of icebergs in the 1937 season. Finally, there is £4,000 under the Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act to meet the cost of unloading and reloading ships suspected of carrying prohibited war materials to Spain, These are the net sums, under each heading which, after allowing for savings and appropriations-in-aid, bring the total required to £15,200.

12.5 a.m.

Sir S. Cripps: There are two important matters which we wish to raise, in spite of the lateness of the hour. The first comes under Item C.2, dealing with travelling expenses of surveyors, etc., and increased travelling expenses necessitated by continued increased activity in shipping and shipbuilding and the more intensive supervision of shipping. On several occasions we on this side have raised the question whether adequate supervision is being given to the crew's quarters in ships, and promises have been given that steps would be taken to ensure better standards. I understand that these are the travelling expenses of those responsible for supervising all that work on ships under construction or being altered or reconstructed. We are anxious to know what instructions these surveyors have had and how far they have carried them out, to ensure that the highest possible standard is maintained, and we should like a fuller statement from the hon. and gallant Member.
The second subject comes under G.6, dealing with the expenses under the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act, 1936, a new subhead which has never previously appeared. That Act was passed to prevent the discharge in or transhipment for Spanish territory of weapons and munitions of war and other articles from British ships. It was one of the measures taken unilaterally by the British Government at a time when ships of other countries were freely taking cargoes of munitions to the rebels in Spain. It was intended to prevent substantially the Spanish Government from getting any munitions. No British ships were being used at that time to take munitions to the rebels; they had ample Italian and German and other shipping; and this was one of those measures which, as mentioned earlier in another Debate, was devised by the Government in order to give assistance to their friends on the rebel side in Spain and to do the maximum damage they could to the cause of the Spanish Government by denying them the right or power to get munitions brought to their assistance while their enemies were freely being supplied by other countries.
We are now asked to provide £4,000 for the working of this Act, and we want to know how many ships have been un-

loaded and then loaded again in which there has been discovered anything for which it was worth while unloading the ships. In other words, how far has this money been wasted on suspicions which proved to be unfounded. Next we should like to know the number of ships dealt with under these powers, that is to say, whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman can give us some idea how many ships were arrested under these powers in any way, on their way to Spain. What proportion, if any, of those ships have been found to carry matters which come within the purview of the Act?
There is a suspicion that this has led to delay in the arrival in Spain of perfectly legitimate cargoes because of suggestions made by outside people that those cargoes should be investigated. The suggestions were for the purpose of delaying the cargoes, and for no other reason. We want to know how such communications as to the supposed contents of cargoes have been received, whether they have been acted upon when they have been only mere suggestions from some outside persons, and, generally, how the Act has been administered; upon what sources of information the Government have relied before they have taken any active step either to stop a ship or to unload or search its cargo, when on its way from this or any other country to Spain. It would be wrong to allow this matter to pass without having some account from the responsible Minister of the way in which the Act has been administered. When we have had fuller information on the matter we shall be able to discuss it more fully and with a better basis for discussion.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. Kelly: I would like to raise a point under the heading "Coastguard." How many men have been engaged, and are they on the permanent staff? Are they to be included in the number of coastguards we have as watchers around the coasts? Is it intended to increase still further the number of watchers over what is indicated in this sum of £2,300? If the new men are not on the regular staff, under what conditions are they working? What is their payment, and is it intended to give them an opportunity to enter the permanent service in the coastguard section? I hope we shall hear whether the Minister is satisfied that with these additions there is an adequate number of


watchers, and whether the South-East Coast is being particularly watched at this time.

12.14 a.m.

Captain Wallace: I will try to deal as concisely as possible with the very proper questions that have been addressed to me from the other side, and first with that of the hon. and learned Gentleman relating to the increased activities of our staff of surveyors. As he rightly surmises, these are the people whose duty is to assume the responsibility of the Board of Trade for the inspection of British ships when they come into port. It is on their shoulders that ultimately rests the responsibility of reporting defects and making recommendations for alterations. During the past two days we have seen two leading articles in a great newspaper which have given people a certain amount of anxiety, or at any rate, cause to think. While those articles suggest that the worst crews' quarters were observed in British ships they say also that the best ones were too. The Committee must draw a very clear distinction between what is proposed to be done—what is in fact increasingly being done in all new construction—

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot raise general questions of Boad of Trade policy on this Estimate.

Mr. Garro Jones: The money is to be provided to pay people whose duty it is to inspect conditions on these ships; how can it be out of order for us to raise questions as to the efficiency with which those duties are discharged?

The Deputy-Chairman: The point is that questions of general policy must come up on the main Estimates. That has been laid down by my predecessors over and over again. We are now considering an increased charge, and the only question which arises is, why is the charge increased?

Sir S. Cripps: Is it not in order for us to inquire whether this increase in the number of surveyors has been in respect of the carrying out of the alleged policy of better crews' quarters and to get an account from the Minister whether that is so in fact and what these surveyors are doing?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite in order in asking that question, and the Minister can answer whether it is or is not so, but he cannot go into general policy.

12.18 a.m.

Captain Wallace: I can certainly say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that one of the reasons for the increase in the activities of these surveyors is undoubtedly to devote increased attention to the burning question of the improvement of conditions in merchant ships. On the other question which he raised, the Carriage of Munitions to Spain Act was passed to apply equally to both sides and was designed to prohibit the discharge in, or transhipment for Spanish territory by British ships of weapons or munitions of war. Whether it has worked out to the advantage of one side or the other has nothing to do with these Estimates. I was asked as to the British ships which were involved; they were the "Sara-stone," the "Springwear," and the "African Mariner." In none of those three cases was any contraband found on board.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me what reasons we had for deciding to search these ships. I am sorry that it is not possible for me to tell him. I think he will realise from his great experience that in carrying out an Act of this kind (or indeed any legislation which deals with a potentially criminal offence) it must be for those who enforce it to act upon information which they receive. I cannot say more to the hon. and learned Gentleman than that His Majesty's Government had reason to think that in these cases the ships were carrying arms. In fact it was found that they were not. The money asked for in the Estimate is to pay for the unloading and reloading of those ships, a charge which it would be very unfair to place upon the owners.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) how many men had joined the coastguard service. I regret that it is not possible for me to give exact figures at this moment. I can only say that we have to run the coastguard service, as is the case of every other public service, on the most practical and economical lines possible. Obviously there must be some places where it is not economical to employ a permanent full-time coastguard, and in such cases it is


much better to employ part-time watchers, who are only called out in certain weather conditions. In pursuance of that policy we have appointed a number of these auxiliary people and have been able to effect some saving in the numbers of permanent whole-time coastguards, who in certain places would be wasting their time.
With regard to the question whether there is likely to be an increase or a diminution of the total number of persons employed in these services, that must depend, as time goes on, on what is considered necessary for the safety of shipping. It is conceivable that, as mechanical and scientific aids such as wireless beacons become more widely used, and as more and more ships are fitted with apparatus for taking advantage of these inventions, it may not be necessary to have so many coastguards, but I do not see any possibility of a diminution of their number in the immediate future.

Mr. Benn: With regard to the three ships which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, could he tell us what was their destination, what was their cargo found on examination to consist of, and what were the dates of the examinations?

Captain Wallace: The "Springwear," owned by the Springwell Shipping Company, was stopped on 7th March, 1937, by a Nationalist armed trawler while on a voyage to Alicante with a grain cargo. She was sent to Gibraltar, the insurgent authorities having stated that they had definite information that she had machine guns on board. The Gibraltar authorities decided to make a thorough search of the vessel. The result of the search was negative, and the Board of Trade have now paid £482 9s. 6d., the cost of searching the vessel, and have at the moment under consideration the owners' claim for £625 for demurrage and out-of-pocket expenses. The "Sarastone," owned by the Stone and Rolfe Steamship Company, Limited, was lying in St. Jean de Luz on 13th April, waiting an opportunity to enter Bilbao with a cargo consisting mainly of potatoes and other foodstuffs. Information was given to His Majesty's Government that she was carrying arms and ammunition. The vessel was therefore sent to Bordeaux with a British official representative on board,

and was searched at Bordeaux under the supervision of the British consul. The result of the search was negative. The Board of Trade paid £1,205 for the cost of searching the vessel, and have now under consideration the owners' claim for compensation for loss and damage. The "African Mariner," owned by the African and Continental Steamship Company, Limited, was, as a result of information to the effect that she was carrying a considerable quantity of arms and ammunition, intercepted in the Mediterranean by a British warship on 17th November, 1937, while on a voyage from Novorossisk to Barcelona with a cargo consisting mainly of chemical fertilisers. The vessel was searched at Malta wath negative results. The expenses of the Malta authorities in making the search amounted to £682, which was paid by the Board of Trade. No claim in respect of loss or damage was received from the owners.

12.24 a.m.

Mr. Benn: We are very much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is well worth sitting up till half-past twelve to learn what happened in these cases. The Government, acting on the tittle-tattle of General Franco, or anyway on groundless information conveyed to them by him, took three ships, two of which contained cargoes of food and one a cargo of the fertilisers necessary to produce it, and, acting as the willing, or certainly not unwilling friends of the insurgents in Spain, interfered with innocent and proper food supplies for the people of Spain; and all this is concealed in a little item at the end of the Estimate relating to charges in connection with the carriage of munitions by sea. Is it not curious that when large cargoes of munitions are coming from other quarters for the insurgents the Government never have any information that causes them to search any ship, and that every search should be made in respect of food supplies or things of that nature supplied to the lawful Government of Spain? But that is not the whole story. In the Bilbao case, there was an attempted blockade, and the Navy was standing by. We remember the shocking exhibition made, not of course, by the Navy, but by the Admiralty orders to the Navy, and at the same time supplementary aid was being given to the blockade by the Admiralty who were sending out orders to prevent the potato


ships entering Bilbao. It throws a shocking light on the policy of the Government which was pretending to be non-interventionist, but are proved to have been willing interventionists on behalf of the insurgents.

12.26 a.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: So far as one of these cases was concerned, it is admitted that the search was undertaken on the information supplied by the insurgent Government. Is there going to be any attempt to get this expense back from the people who gave this false information, owing to which we have been put to this charge?

12.27 a.m.

Captain Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman is completely begging the question. He says that it is admitted that we got the information from certain quarters. That is not admitted for one moment.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did exactly state—perhaps by accident—with regard to the first of the three vessels that the information was received from the insurgent forces. It may not have been his intention, but that was what he said. I was very careful to say that, "so far as one case was concerned," it was admitted.

Captain Wallace: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; he is quite correct in this particular case. But the fact that we got the information from a particular source is surely not relevant. I would like to remind hon. Members, when they talk about our having taken one side or the other in this matter, that this Act of Parliament with which we are concerned is directed entirely to preventing the carriage of prohibited war material in British ships. It does not even apply to Dominion ships. Because it so happened that, in the exercise of the discretion that we were bound to exercise under the Act, the three ships stopped all happened to be destined for one side and not to be carrying contraband, it does not prove that contraband was not being carried to one or both sides.

12.29 a.m.

Sir S. Cripps: We cannot leave this where the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would like to leave it. What this

does prove is that this Act was designed to stop ships going to the Spanish Government.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot criticise the policy of an Act of Parliament.

Sir S. Cripps: I was not criticising it; I was stating what it was. I am coming to deal with the facts which have been disclosed for the first time, to the Committee. This is the first time the Committee has had an opportunity, and it may be the last, of discussing what comes out of these facts. Take the case of the "Sarastone." It was in St. Jean de Luz on 17th April waiting for an urgent cargo of foodstuff to get into Bilbao. Every hour's delay was known to be adverse to those who were trying to defend Bilbao, and apparently on the information of someone—and I think we can guess who it was—an agent of General Franco—who was frying to prevent it getting there, this ship is taken away from St. Jean de Luz to Bordeaux and has its cargo unloaded—an admirable method of delaying this urgently needed cargo of foodstuffs getting to Bilbao. If it had been some reliable information of some sort the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have read it out as he read out reliable information in regard to the "Springwear." Acting, therefore, on a mere suspicion in circumstances when everybody knew—not only Members of the Government, but the public—that these cargoes were being most urgently waited for in Bilbao to save the people from starvation, the Government willingly lent themselves to what was obviously a device by the rebels to try to delay the landing of this cargo.
Surely in those circumstances we are entitled to say that this action and many other actions of the British Government were designed to help Franco. Take the "Springwear." On 7th March, 1937, she was somewhere in the Mediterranean bound with a cargo of grain to Alicante. She is taken by a Nationalist trawler and conducted, not to a Nationalist port, but into the friendly arms of Gibraltar and there handed over to the British authorities on the instigation of the Nationalist trawler to search—a thing which might have been done if there were a blockade and a ship had been taken into a port and there might have been a proper search. But here, for nothing further than the act


of capture and the suggested suspicion of the opponent force, we again lend ourselves to the unloading of a cargo of grain in Gibraltar, and again the inevitable delay and risks which, in those circumstances, are run in getting that cargo to the Spanish Government. What earthly right has the Board of Trade, on the information of the enemy of this vessel, to search it, delaying the arrival of this important cargo in the Spanish Government port? Absolutely nothing but a bias in favour of the Nationalist Government would ever have permitted us to lend ourselves to such an action.
With regard to the "African Mariner." She was bound on 17th November for Barcelona with a cargo of fertilisers. She is taken away to Malta, undoubtedly again a long delay. Who suggested that she had on board anything other than chemical fertilisers? Is it not obviously another attempt from either Nationalist quarters in Spain or one of their informers somewhere else to try to cause delay to this cargo, which was urgently needed at the time of year in Spain in order to produce the foodstuffs which would be grown this spring? I should like to know from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman how many other ships he has had information about, whether this is the totality of the ships going to the Spanish Government or whether there are other cases where no search has been made although he has received information from some quarter or another? If he would give us this information it is possible the picture might not look so black against the British Government. As he has left it at present it must appear certain in everybody's mind that in the administration of this Act the British Government have been working as the willing ally of Franco.

12.37 a.m.

Captain Wallace: These are the only three cases which I have dealt with because they are the only three cases in order under this Supplementary Estimate. They are the only cases in which we are asking for money from the Committee. There has been one other case, that of the steamship "Euphorbia," where the vessel was detained for investigation under the Act. It was intercepted by a British warship and taken to Gibraltar as a result of information that it was carrying war material to Spain. In this case the

ship was not searched and no claim was received from the owners in respect of loss. Regarding the "African Mariner," there apparently was not any great sense of grievance on the part of the owners, because they did not put forward any claim in respect of loss or damage.

12.38 a.m.

Mr. Benn: May we take it that there will be a Supplementary Estimate later on to pay these claims, or will the money be paid by the people who laid the false information? Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman received any other information of alleged breaches of the Act in which he has not acted?

Captain Wallace: It would not be in order to discuss that under this Estimate.

12.39 a.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: The Committee will be sorry to have its attention drawn from the interesting, curious story with which we have been dealing to the question of the administration of the Board of Trade in relation to the examination of British ships. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to certain questions which appeared in two special articles in the "Times" yesterday and the day before. You ruled, Captain Bourne, that questions of policy could not be discussed on Supplementary Estimates, and of course your ruling always carries decisive weight in the Committee, but I would point out that if questions of policy are to be brought down to the smallest administrative acts, and those acts ruled out of order as questions of policy, nothing whatever will be in order on the Supplementary Estimates when they come to be discussed. However, I feel I shall not fall foul of your ruling on this occasion because what I propose to deal with is the manner in which the administrative actions of those persons for whom we are providing the money in this Supplementary Estimate has been carried out.
I want to pay a tribute to the "Times" for the outspoken nature of these contributions. I should not like that tribute, for what it is worth, to be regarded as a general one, because I consider that the "Times," which for a great many years was an example of impartiality in British journalism, has become an extremely mean and biased newspaper, particularly on its centre page—mean and biased because, under


the guise of impartiality, it is the most biased report of political proceedings, at any rate on the centre page, of all the newspapers published to-day. It is because of that that I am particularly glad to pay this tribute to them for the candour of these articles, affecting seamen's conditions, which hon. Members in all parts of the House have very much at heart. These articles are entitled "Ships and Men." The right hon. and gallant Member attempted to defend the disquieting disclosures made in these articles by explaining that if the worst conditions are found on British ships there are also the best to be found on them. I would draw his attention to the fact that he has misread the articles, because what they say is that British cargo ships of the future are to be better living places for seamen and firemen. They say that on most British cargo ships to-day the conditions range from poor—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman really cannot raise that on this Supplementary Estimate. He must raise it on the main Estimate.

Mr. Garro Jones: I have here a further extract from the articles which, perhaps, would come within the Ruling of the Chair. It says:
It is the duty of the Board of Trade inspectors to inspect the crews' spaces whenever they have reason to think that the spaces fail in any way to comply with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act or of the new Regulations.
That is a specific statement of the duties of the inspectors of the Board of Trade. We are paying the salaries and expenses of these inspectors, and surely we are to be allowed to state—

The Deputy-Chairman: No, that is exactly what we are not allowed to state.

Mr. Garro Jones: We are paying extra expenses which have been incurred and which have given rise to this Supplementary Estimate for the Board of Trade. It is to be found on page 15, where it says that it is for more intensive supervision of ships. My submission is that the supervision of ships has not been more intensive, and unless we are to be allowed to deal with the specific actions of the neglect of these inspectors for whom we are now—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot raise that on the Supplementary Estimate. He may ask why more

money is wanted and what it is spent on, but these are the only points which arise.

Mr. Garro Jones: In order to elucidate this matter further I invite the Minister to say what the specific action of these Board of Trade inspectors is and what specific ships have been inspected which gives rise to the necessity for this additional money? If he can give chapter and verse for every extra pound, then we shall be in a better position to cross-examine him on the necessity for this, but if he is not able to give specific cases in which the extra money has been spent, then it shows that the administration of this is so inextricably intertwined with policy that we can never discuss a Supplementary Estimate unless we are able to do so on general grounds.

12.44 a.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I should like to raise a point in connection with the surveyors who are referred to on page 14 of the Estimate. When the Minister was speaking he referred to the intensive work that the surveyors have had to do on account of the increase in shipping. I assume that it is the intention of the Department to have the standard of British ships as high as possible. In the articles referred to by a previous speaker it seems to me it was shown that there was a very great need for the surveyors to have their work very much intensified, because it seemed that the quality and the standard of the ships that the surveyors have to survey—

The Deputy-Chairman: I stopped the previous speaker on that point, and the hon. Member cannot go on with it.

Mr. Taylor: I want to point out that from page 14 of the Estimate—with all the boast that the Minister made about the intensified work of the surveyors—it is quite evident that the surveyors have cost much less with all the intensified supervision that we have had and with all the increased building. I know there has been increased activity in the shipyards—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot go into questions of policy.

Mr. Taylor: I was not going into the policy of shipping, but it seemed to me that the Minister, unintentionally, has misled the Committee in his argument on


this Estimate, because whereas he was saying that the increased volume of shipbuilding had intensified the desire that the work of the surveyors should be extended to as many ships as possible on account of the low standard of the majority of our ships, it seemed a remarkable thing that this Estimate should be down to £600 instead of the £1,400 that he talked about. It would seem, judging from the articles we have had in the "Times" that the standard of British shipping—and I am not speaking of the quality or excellence of our shipping from the technical or building point of view, but of the abominable and deplorable conditions of the forecastle in which our sailors have to live—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must raise that on some other occasion.

Mr. Taylor: Well, can I have an explanation on this point? Can we be given any approximate idea of the number of visits that the surveyors have made?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, not on this Estimate.

12.49 a.m.

Colonel Nathan: I should like to pursue the explanation of the sum of £1,400 under sub-head C.2. My object is to ascertain from the Minister, if it is possible, how much of that sum is represented by expenditure upon the more intensive supervision of shipping? This £1,400 is allocated to various items. There is increased expenditure for travelling expenses, partly, as I understand from this document, necessitated by the continued increased activity in shipping, partly necessitated by the increased activity in shipbuilding and partly by the more intensive supervision of shipping. Will the Minister be good enough to divide the sum of £1,400 under these three headings so that we may know how much has been expended on each of these specific items, to which the global sum of £1,400 is allocated? We shall then be able to know how much of the £1,400 has been devoted to the more intensive supervision of shipping. I supplement that question by asking if, when giving us the information, he will inform us of the nature of the more intensive supervision? In what respect has it been more intensive so as to involve additional expenditure?

12.40 a.m.

Mr. Davidson: I make no apology for speaking at this late hour, because I consider that the discussion of Supplementary Estimates is really one very effective method of giving ordinary Members the fullest information in regard to points of Order and the customs and Procedure of the House. I might say I shall attempt to keep as much as possible within the ambit of your Rulings upon this particular question even if I am forced to read from the White Paper word for word. In the first item, A 1, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman—when he dealt with the question of the special work which involves the further Supplementary Estimate of £3,000 he merely brushed away the proposal—if he could give us some more definite information in regard to the special work that involved this sum? I may point out, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, that at least Members on this side frequently visit their constituencies and speak to their constituents. I desire to associate myself with the very strong opposition against this order that has been made from our Front Bench and to hope sincerely that that opposition will be carried to its logical conclusion.
I will deal with this item of special work. Does this particular item involve expense under the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act? The Minister shakes his head. Perhaps he will be able to give the information to the Committee, because I think, in view of the proceedings in various Government Departments recently, when much has been done officially and much has been done unofficially, that Members of this Committee should at least have some idea as to this special work which involved a Supplementary Estimate for £3,000. That in a Supplementary Estimate may not seem much to some, but I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that to the majority of the people in my constituency £3,000 is a considerable sum of money. It would take them out of the poverty they are in and keep them in very great comfort for practically the duration of their lives.
I would also like to ask about the travelling and incidental expenses in A 2. It states here that increased expenditure on travelling and incidentals was necessitated mainly by increases in activities of the sea transport branch. I am sure we


are all very glad indeed to hear that the sea transport branch is becoming more active, but I think we are entitled to ask about this increased activity involving a further sum of £1,000 which is more than many working men could save, supposing they were in employment for 80 years under present day conditions. This £1,000 should be explained or the activities of this sea transport branch should be explained to the Committee. Then we have the question of telegrams and telephones, £1,000, and further on I see under Coastguards, D 5, telegrams and telephones, another £1,000.

Sir Douglas Thomson: Would the hon. Member like the £1,000 to be saved by economising on broadcast warnings regarding gales?

Mr. Davidson: May I point out that I am desirous of obtaining official information? I think this House and the country have been greatly perturbed by the official information that has been so clear and so apparent in other Government circles. On the question of telegrams and telephones it states with regard to the Mercantile Marine that this is a heavier expenditure on radio telegrams disseminating navigational and gale warning messages. With regard to the coastguards, we have exactly the same amount, and it would be very interesting to those of my hon. Friends who are interested in bookkeeping to ascertain just exactly how, to the last halfpenny of £1,000 in each instance this Supplementary Estimate was necessary and was so accurately arrived at. I have my suspicions that it may have been £1,001, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may have contributed a pound out of his own pocket to make it an even figure. If so, we are entitled to know because no right hon. Gentleman, whether he be a member of the Cabinet or not, should be allowed to suffer any financial losses with regard to the particularly heavy duties and responsibilities he undertakes when he accepts office.
Therefore, I would like to ask if he would explain how these amounts are arrived at, and the whole question of navigational and gale warnings as apart from expenditure on radio distress messages. I am rather distressed—coming from a rather romantic place—to find that a whole £1,000 has been taken up in radio distress messages. I always

understood that even at sea certain events took place, and I thought we might have had something in the way of messages of congratulation or some other kind of message. I would like the Minister, on the question of A4 and D5, to explain to the Committee how exactly these two items are arrived at, and we would be interested to obtain some idea of the accurate bookkeeping methods employed by his particular department. I also share with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) his fears with regard to this particular point, the expense under the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act.
I would remind the Committee, if I may take the liberty as one who has worked in a factory for many years, that it is a very common practice of prominent bookmakers to supply whispers in certain factories and in certain areas of the cities with regard to a certain horse winning a certain race. We usually find that after this horse has been heavily backed the bookmaker is the man who benefits because another horse wins. We may have the British shipowner taking advantage of the generosity of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department with regard to this. We may have a shipowner, even in Glasgow, whispering, sending an unofficial message. I do not know how these unofficial messages are delivered or whether the expense of these messages is placed at the door of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department, but we may have shipowners sending whispers, or unofficial messages, that a ship is proceeding to a particular port in Spain, that this ship has goods of contraband character, and we may have the right hon. and gallant Gentleman placing into operation the full force of his service, bringing all these men, the intelligence representatives, on to the job, having the ship taken to a far-away port, and then the owner holding up the Board of Trade for a very heavy sum in damages. These are dangers arising out of what I might term a careless expenditure under this head.
Therefore, while we have had an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, an explanation which was most interesting, I would like to ask if he is assured that none of this money has been spent because of unofficial messages from interested parties. If he gives us that assurance I am sure the committee will


be prepared to accept it. I think I have put forward one or two points for the Minister's consideration, and I think those points are worthy of his consideration and reply. I can assure him that in accordance with the answer he gives to me and my hon. Friends, if it be full and adequate, I will take the first opportunity of informing my constituents that affairs at his Department are all right. But if his answer is inadequate, if it does not meet these points and explain very fully indeed to the House the great care and attention his Department are taking to deal with these Supplementary Estimates, I regret I shall have to take every opportunity of informing my constituents and other constituents that the Minister is not looking after the public purse of the nation in an efficient and capable manner.

1.1 a.m.

Captain Wallace: I am afraid that last piece sounds rather like blackmail. I am not certain whether I ought to secure the good opinion of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down at the risk of antagonising the rest of the Committee. At any rate, I will do my best to combine brevity with information and to answer the points put. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) and the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) dealt with a question of general policy. I should be very glad, and I hope the opportunity will occur, to enable my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade or myself to deal with the very interesting articles that have appeared in the "Times." But that cannot be discussed now. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan) asked how I divide the £1,400 but—

Mr. Garro Jones: May I point out that we are in Committee now and there is no question of finishing until we are satisfied that our grievances have been remedied? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Wallace) referred to the articles in the "Times" and wished to have time for the Board of Trade to work out the reply—

Captain Wallace: No, I did not say that at all.

Mr. Garro Jones: That shows the advantages which accrue from slurring

over important points. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what he proposes to do about them. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to read the articles he will realise that an extremely important issue has arisen.

The Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how he gets this into the Supplementary Vote?

Mr. Garro Jones: I do not propose to repeat at great length my case to establish the relevance of these articles to this Vote, as I had given up hope of convincing your predecessor in the Chair of my rectitude in the matter. As I could not, I do not propose to pursue the matter further.

Captain Wallace: I was just saying to the two hon. Members that on the appropriate occasion I would be very glad to do so. The only reason I am not doing so to-night is that I have been ruled out of order myself once. Several hon. Gentlemen have met with the same fate. There is no question of discourtesy to the House or of any attempt to slur over any point that is within the ambit of these Supplementary Estimates. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth asked me about the £1,400. I am afraid it is impossible to divide the £1,400 meticulously between work necessitated by increased activity of shipping, that is the increased numbers of ships coming in and out of port, and more intensive supervision. But I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that we are most anxious that the increased activity in shipping should not in any way diminish the intensity of the supervision. Very much the contrary. I am sure he will realise it would not be possible to appropriate the £1,400 exactly between the two sides of the picture.
The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. J. Davidson) asked me several pertinent questions and I should like to tell him that the sums asked for under A 1 and A 2 have nothing whatever to do with the carriage of arms to Spain. That is dealt with under G 6. Both these items are largely due to the additional demands made on the Sea Transport branch of the Mercantile Marine Department of the Board of Trade by the Defence Departments. They arise more especially out of events which have taken place recently in the Mediterranean and the Far East. They have thrown a heavy burden on


the Sea Transport branch because of heavy movements of men and stores. The staff has had to be strengthened to deal with increased work and more telegrams have had to be sent.
With regard to communications, the difference between A 4 and D 5 is that A 4 in general refers to telegrams dispatched from headquarters or shore stations disseminating gale warnings, whereas D 5 refers to the inward messages received in regard to specific cases of distress. That is the very broad distinction between the two subheads. Even at the risk of leaving the hon. Member for Maryhill still dissatisfied, I think I have dealt with the main points and therefore ask the Committee to approve this Estimate.

1.8 a.m.

Colonel Nathan: Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman sits down I must direct his attention to C 2. The Committee cannot allow his charm of manner and the lateness of the hour to distract attention from the gravity of his statement that the £1,400 is not an estimated sum but is a figure just written down on a piece of paper.

Captain Wallace: The whole thing is an estimate.

Colonel Nathan: I fully understand it is an estimate for expenditure partly incurred and partly still to be incurred for the period ending on 31st March. It must be an expenditure arrived at by reference to some figures. It must be an addition to other figures. So much must that be so that he has taken the trouble to say it does represent more than one single item—partly travelling expenses and partly supervision of shipping. My question is, What proportion of that £1,400 is represented by these various items? He says he cannot tell me; but if he calls in his builder and asks for an estimate for a building yet to be set up it is perfectly true that the figure will not be the figure of expenditure; but he will expect to get prices and detailed figures. I shall expect him to have in his portfolio, though I do not ask for them to-night, detailed figures setting out exactly how the £1,400 figure is reached. It seems to me a very grave matter that an estimate should be placed before this House unless these figures are the result of a precise calculation by way of an estimate.
All I have asked for—and I repeat the request—is an indication in round figures, or in proportion, of how this £1,400 is divided among the various items to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded. Let me remind him that it is not this Committee which has put in this information. It is the right hon. Gentleman who has put it in. All that the right hon. Gentleman has to do—he will correct me if I am wrong—is to inquire from the Committee and to vote the additional sum for travelling surveyors. But on page 15 he is giving what he himself describes as "details of the foregoing." The details which he gives, and heaven knows they are general enough in all conscience, are "increased expenditure on certain categories of outgoings." I am not asking for pounds, shillings and pence but for the details, roughly speaking, of the proportion in which the £1,400 is allocated between these various items which he himself has chosen to set out in the particulars and for which he is asking the approval of the Committee. I think the Committee is entitled to know, and I want to know, how much of the £1,400 is travelling expenses, how much is due to increased activity in shipbuilding and in shipping, and how much to more intensive supervision for shipping. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give that information in broad general terms the Committee is being asked to pass this Vote without being given the information which it is essential it should have in order to form a judgment as to whether these are proper items.

1.12 a.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not certain that we are not all barking up the wrong tree about this. The hound which is baying most up the wrong tree is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will notice that there is a saving on salaries of surveyors of £2,000, and there is an increase of travelling expenses of £1,400. Is not the probable solution that fewer surveyors have travelled more? There are, I presume, fewer surveyors if their salaries are £2,000 less. Obviously, if there is more work to do and there are fewer surveyors, they must have travelled more. Really the £1,400 is an economy of £600, which has been brought about by having fewer surveyors and making them travel further.

1.14 a.m.

Captain Wallace: I must correct the hon. and learned Gentleman. I understand that we are not allowed to give further detailed information on Supplementary Estimates in regard to Appropriations-in-Aid, but the work of these surveyors is, to a large extent, paid for by the owners of the ships. The fact that there has been more activity during the year has resulted in a larger expenditure for the surveyors, but there has been a considerable time lag between the expenditure by the Department in paying the expenses and the recovery of money from the ship-owners. I think, therefore, that the obvious explanation that sprang to the eye first is, in this case, not altogether correct.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Silverman: The questions I want to ask concern Paragraph E.1 on page 15. It deals with the relief and repatriation of British seamen abroad and says that increased expenditure is anticipated to the extent of £9,000 consequent upon a greater number of seamen coming into charge abroad, due mainly to increased shipping activities. It is said in parentheses that "a proportion will be recovered, see sub-head H.7." Sub-head H.7, on page 16, with special sub-head "Recovery of sums expended under subhead E.1 in the relief and repatriation of British seamen (see Sub-head E.1)." I want to know who it is that makes this payment back.

The Chairman: That is an Appropriation-in-Aid. I have mentioned Appropriation-in-Aid several times as not debateable.

Mr. Silverman: Increased shipping activities do not cause any necessity for repatriation of seamen. It is when the increased shipping has unfortunate results that it becomes necessary for the distressed seamen abroad to be repatriated. I should like to know whether any of these activities involved in this extra charge happened in Spanish waters, whether any of it is due to the attacks on British shipping arising out of affairs in Spain and arising out of the so-called Non-Intervention Agreement, one of the main results of which seems to have been a continued series of attacks on British shipping in circumstances con-

cerning which the British Government's efforts are apparently confined to repatriating these distressed seamen after an attack.
I do not know whether any of this extra sum is due to the Government's policy on Spanish affairs. No details are given. We do not know where these seamen were when it became necessary to repatriate them, nor do we know whether their distress was due to the condition of the ship in which they originally sailed. It may be that if more intensive survey, which is referred to in another paragraph, had really been efficient, it might not have been necessary to repatriate so many. It may be that if British ships were better equipped, and the arrangements on British ships were better superintended, if the ships themselves were better ships, if the slums of the sea were subject to some kind of slum clearance analogous to the methods adopted in the slums ashore, if all that had been more effective, then the ships would not have come to disaster and there would not have been this necessity to repatriate them to an extent so greatly in excess of what was budgeted for nearly 12 months ago.
When one bears in mind the accounts which appear from time to time in reputable journals about the conditions in British ships—as to our being content with the second bests and as to the extent to which they lag behind those of our competitors—[Interruption.] I do not know whether hon. Members want to speak; if they do I will willingly give way to them and make the rest of my remarks later on. It is usual, if hon. Members want to make a speech, for them to do it in the English language. Although we are pursuing all kinds of conversations with all kinds of people with all kinds of records in all kinds of conditions, we have not yet reached the stage when we make this Committee conduct its proceedings in anything but the English language.

Mr. Davidson: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it will be in order in future speeches for hon. Members on this side of the House to imitate the voices of other hon. Members?

The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Member will wait until the occasion arises and then leave the matter in the hands of the Chair.

Mr. Silverman: The point I was making was, why it was necessary for the Government to come to the Committee and ask for a further £9,000 over and above what had been already budgeted for, for the expenses of repatriating British seamen distressed abroad. In these circumstances members of the Government should tell us whether the state of British ships has anything to do with it—whether it was the failure of supervision or the really horrible conditions in which so many of our ships go to sea which have resulted in an unanticipated increase of shipping disasters to British ships in foreign waters and which have cost the country this extra £9,000. I do not know whether the Minister can tell us a great deal about it. I understood from his speech just now that he would be most anxious to deal with the point if only the point were in order, and I am doing my very best to persuade him that he really would not be overstepping the bounds of order if his explanation—

The Chairman: That is a matter not for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman or for the hon. Member, but for me to decide.

Mr. Silverman: I am sorry if I attributed to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a jurisdiction which is not his. I did not intend that at all. I only meant to ask whether there is anything in this particular item which is relevant to the questions which have been raised as to the conditions of British ships—whether there is anything further which he is determined could be, or ought to have been, done to make the expenditure of this additional £9,000 unnecessary, and whether if the supervision had been effective it would have been necessary to spend this sum. If this does in fact give him an opportunity of dealing with the criticisms raised, I am sure he will welcome that opportunity and that the Committee will listen to his explanation with very great attention and gratitude.

1.27 a.m.

Captain Wallace: I think I can explain the matter quite simply. First of all, I suggest to the hon. Member that he was perhaps not in the House when I first explained this Supplementary Estimate, because I pointed out that I thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I divided the net sum required—namely, £15,200—into

four separate headings, taking credit in each for such savings or additional Appropriations-in-Aid as properly belonged to them. When I came to the second heading—British seamen abroad—the figure I gave was not £9,000, but £1,000. If the hon. Member had been present at the time he would have realised that most of this item in E 1 is offset by the increased receipts on another page. The provision under this head is to meet the maintenance, medical treatment and conveyance expenses of seamen left abroad through sickness, injury or otherwise—distressed British seamen under Part 4 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906. Eighty per cent. of the money spent by the Board of Trade under this sub-head is recovered in due course from the owners and other sources. The money is disbursed not by the Board of Trade itself but by persons like Consuls in foreign ports and shipping masters in ports of the Empire. Any increased activity in shipping which has taken place during the last 12 months must inevitably have repercussions in the number of seamen who have to be repatriated, and so the expenses will fall on the fund this year and we may not get repayment until next financial year. The sum of money required under this Vote is in direct proportion to the activity of shipping. There is no reason whatever to suppose that there is any unaccountable increase in the number of seamen left abroad in these circumstances, in view of the very modest additional sum of £1,000 required. I may add that there is no reason to suppose that any of these people were concerned with the carrying of munitions to Spain.

Mr. Silverman: I asked one specific question—whether any part of it had happened in Spanish waters.

Captain Wallace: Not that I know of.

Mr. Silverman: The other question was whether any of it was due to the conditions to which British shipping had been reduced owing to the lack of supervision and the failure of the owners to give proper equipment and properly built ships.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray


the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain Services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund and other Services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including Services under the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935, the Coastguard, General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen and Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1936.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £12,737 9s. 6d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Departments for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1937:—


Class and Vote.
Amount to be Voted.


CLASS VI.
£
s.
d.


Vote 2. Mercantile Marine Services
10
0
0


CLASS VII.


Vote 15. Works and Buildings in Ireland
1,464
14
11


CLASS VIII.


Vote 4. Superannuation and Retired Allowances
11,262
14
7."

1.29 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut-Colonel Colville): Let me say one word on the subject of Excess Votes. Normally any excess expenditure on a Vote can be foreseen with some degree of accuracy and provision is made in such cases to cover this by a Supplementary Estimate during the year to which the Vote relates. Occasionally it happens, however, that the fact that there will be an excess does not become apparent until it is too late to pass a Supplementary Estimate through Parliament. In such a case the accounts for that year show net expenditure in excess of the amount voted by Parliament. The position then disclosed is brought before the Public Accounts Committee which acts as the faithful watch-dog of Parliament in financial matters. That Committee makes a special report to Parliament on the circumstances, and the position then has to be regularised by a Vote in Supply for the amount of the excess. The Committee's report in relation to these 1936 Votes has been before hop. Members for some time. I am presenting three Excess Votes to-night. I would like to draw attention particularly to the third one. This excess accounts for almost the whole of the total figure of £12,737. It occurred on the Vote for Superannuation and Retired

Allowances and was due to abnormally heavy expenditure on additional allowances during the last quarter of the year, particularly in the month of March. I am speaking now of the year which ended on 31st March last. It is always difficult to forecast exactly the amount that is required for these allowances. The payments are due on retirements from Government service, and it is difficult to forecast exactly the amount required. During the month of March last year a considerably larger sum than was expected had to be expended on these additional allowances. The matter was reported on by the Public Accounts Committee, and I would like to refer to their report in conclusion. The committee agreed that such expenditure was very difficult to estimate, but they asked the Accounting Officer to consider whether steps could be taken towards the end of each year to ascertain whether an excess over estimate is likely to be anticipated in order that a Supplementary Estimate may be applied for if necessary and an Excess Vote prevented. The Public Accounts Committee recommended that such inquiry should be made each year. That procedure is being adopted and, as the Committee will be aware, I have already presented to the Committee—and it has passed the Committee stage—a Supplementary Estimate for this year for the same purpose in order to avoid an Excess Vote on this year's Vote. With these explanations, and having in view that the Public Accounts Committee say at the end of their report that they see no objection to these sums being provided by Excess Votes, I hope the Committee will agree to the Vote.

Sir S. Cripps: I am very glad that the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee on this point is to be adopted, as it seems to us to be desirable.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Work-


ington, which was presented on the 1st day of February and published, be approved."—[Captain Wallace.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts,. 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Spalding Urban District Council, which was presented on the 11th day of February and published, be approved."—[Captain Wallace.]

1.34 a.m.

Mr. Kelly: I do not wish to take exception to this Order at this hour of the night, but really it is a little unfair on the part of the Government to be pressing these matters through at this hour when other Members may not be here to have the opportunity of dealing with matters that may concern their own particular districts and divisions.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Newport (Monmouthshire) Gas Company, which was presented on the 17th day of February and published, be approved."—[Captain Wallace.]

1.35 a.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: Would the Patronage Secretary be good enough to explain why it is necessary to take these Orders tonight? After all, there is some substance in the point raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) that there may be Members who desire to object to or to comment on these Orders, and if that is so, they ought not to be deprived of the opportunity by reason of the unexpected time of their presentation, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who has made great progress, whether he should not be satisfied with the work he has accomplished.

1.36 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): These Orders are unopposed and exempted business. If any hon. Member was interested in raising any point on them no doubt he would be here. The Government are always allowed to take a certain number of Gas Orders and Electricity Orders after 11 o'clock. It has been done for some years, and I see no reason for departing from the practice.

Mr. Benn: I do not object to these Gas Orders and I do not wish to hinder the programme, but I do object to the right hon. Gentleman saying that "the Government are allowed." I object to his putting a precedent in his speech. I do not know what he means by that. To the Orders themselves I do not raise any objection.

Orders of the Day — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes before Two o'Clock.